Kolkata Court January 1929 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.
Santiram Mandal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal229,118Ind.Cas.572
Mukerji, J.1. This Rule has been issued to show cause why a commitment to the Court of Sessions should not be quashed on two of the grounds set forth in the petitioner's petition of motion. The commitment has been made for the trial of the petitioner on a charge under Sections 211, 193 and 194, I.P.C. The two grounds on which the Rule his been issued are:First for that in view of the fact that the judicial enquiry in respect of which the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence with which ha has been charged was in regard to a prosecution which was not legally instituted, no judicial notice could be taken of the complaint made or of the evidence given by the petitioner both of which are nonest in the eye of law, and the commitment made on the basis thereof is not sustainable in law.2. Second : For that the order of commitment is vitiated by the fact that the complainant was not examined at the enquiry before the Magistrate.3. Now the relevant facts are these : The petitioner...
J.W. Nunn Vs. Calcutta Tramsways Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal603
Costello, J.1. This is a claim by James William Nunn against the Calcutta Tramways Co., Ltd. claiming, damages for personal injuries sustained by him in an accident, which occurred on 10th September 1926, when admittedly the plaintiff was injured by a tramcar belonging to the defendants. The plaintiff says that the defendant Company were guilty of negligence, and he claims to recover from them a substantial sum by way of damages, because by reason of the accident he has lost his employment as an engineer in the service of the Eastern Bengal Railway Company, where he was employed on a salary of something like Rs. 1,200 a month together with certain allowances. The defendants by their defence deny that they were guilty of any negligence. They say that the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the plaintiff himself and, in the alternative, they say that, in any event, even if they were guilty of negligence, the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and that the acciden...
Ramjan Ali Vs. Moolji Seeka and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal521,118Ind.Cas.889
Buckland, J.1. This is an application to admit an appeal which it is sought to prefer against the judgment and order of Page, J., dated 14th August 1928, whereby he recorded a finding that it was expedient in the interests of justice that an enquiry should be made into certain offences specified by him and ordered that a complaint thereof be made in writing signed by himself and forwarded to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta.2. The Registrar has endorsed upon the memorandum of appeal:I am unable to admit this appeal. It is open to appellant to apply to the appeal Court.3. The reason given for this is that the requisition for office copy was given after the expiry of 20 days. Prima facie the registrar would appear to be right and to have correctly applied the well known rule applicable, but this application does not depend on any such consideration and no useful purpose would be served by reciting the several dates upon which the various steps customary between the making of an ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›