Kolkata Court February 1901 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.
Sukalbutti Mandrani Vs. Babulal Mandar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal190
Maclean, C.J.1. We do not think that this is a case in which a certificate ought to be granted. It appears to us that the view taken in the case of Gopinath Birbar v. Goluck Chunder Bose (1) must be taken to have been subsequently overruled by the decision o the Privy Council in the case of Tulsi Persad Bhakt v. Benayek Misser (1896) I.L.R. 23 Cal. 918 : L.R. 23 I.A. 102. In the latter case their Lordships of the Judicial Committee sum up their conculsion in this language: 'Their Lordships think that no question of law, either as to construction of documents or any other point, arises on the judgment of the High Court, and that there are concurrent findings of the two Courts below on the oral and documentary evidence submitted to them. That being so, the present appeal cannot be entertained.'2. In the present case there are concurrent finding of the Lower Court and of this Court upon questions which are merely questions of fact, and, upon those findings as they stand, it is conceded th...
Kina Karmakar Vs. Preo Nath Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal479
Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. In this case the Magistrate has dismissed the complaint; and finding it to be false and vexatious ho has passed an order under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, giving compensation to the accused. In his judgment the Magistrate clearly indicates that in- his opinion from the previous relations between the principals of the parties concerned, the complaint made was both false and malicious and made with some deliberation. It seems to us therefore that this was essentially a case coming within s. 211 of the Penal Code, inasmuch as the Magistrate has found that the complainant, with intent to cause injury to the accused, instituted criminal proceedings against him, knowing that there was no just and lawful ground for such proceeding or charge. We are, therefore, of opinion that, in passing the order for compensation, the Magistrate did not exercise a proper discretion. We accordingly set aside that order. The Magistrate is at liberty, if he is so ad...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›