Kolkata Court November 1893 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Azizan Vs. Matuk Lal Sahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal437
Macpherson, J.1. The plaintiff' is one of the heirs of Mahomed Saleh, against whom and others the defendant obtained a decree for money in January 1877. The decree was executed in that year, and partial satisfaction was obtained. In March 1890 the defendant again applied to execute the decree for the whole outstanding balance against the plaintiff and other judgment-debtors or their representatives; the plaintiff objected to the execution, on the ground that the decree had been adjusted in so far as she was concerned, but her objection was disallowed, as the adjustment had not been certified to the Court. The plaintiff brings this suit for a declaration that the defendant has no right to execute the decree as against her and for an injunction to restrain him from so executing it. She says that in August 1887 they adjusted their accounts; that her share of the amount which had been realized in satisfaction of the decree and her share of the amount which was still outstanding were apport...
iahan Chandra Chandra and Two ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal328
Trevelyan and Rampini, JJ.1. It is unnecessary for us to enter into the details of the history of this case. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge has accurately narrated the circumstances which led to the present enquiry. There can be no doubt but that one of the most skilful and impudent forgeries ever committed has been perpetrated. It is for us to ascertain whether on the evidence any offence has been brought home to the present accused.2. The questions argued before us, and those which we have to determine, are as follows: 1. Is exhibit A a genuine document? 2. Is exhibit L a forgery? 3. If A is genuine, was it ever on the Collectorate record referred to in this case? 4. If A is genuine, and was on such Collectorate record, was it stolen therefrom? 5. Have the accused or any of them committed any offence in respect of these documents3. The learned Sessions Judge and the assessors have come to the conclusion that exhibit A is a genuine document. Much argument on this subject h...
Ram Chand Chatterjee Vs. Hanif Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal401
Trevelyan and Rampini, JJ.1. In this case it appears that the co-accused called certain witnesses. The case of the co-accused was one we think adverse to that of the applicant before us. The applicant before us says that he applied to be allowed to cross-examine those witnesses, but was not allowed to do so. The statement that he was not allowed to do so is made on affidavit, and is not contradicted by the Deputy Magistrate. We think there might be many cases of failure of justice if a co-accused were not allowed to cross-examine witnesses called by a person whose case was adverse to his, for the effect might be, practically, that a Court might act upon evidence which was not subjected to cross-examination. The Evidence Act gives a right to cross-examine witnesses called by the adverse party. That being so, we set aside the conviction and sentence, and direct the Deputy Magistrate to recall those witnesses who had been called by Natoo Behari Chatterjee, and give the applicant before us...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›