Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1944)46BOMLR589
Divatia, J.1. After setting out the facts, the judgment proceeded: The prosecution had examined the Mamlatdar in the committing Magistrate's Court and he had produced certain correspondence to the effect that accused No. 2 was suspected of having committed several defalcations as the talati of Lambha. This Mamlatdar was not examined in the Sessions Court, and the Sub-Inspector stated in his evidence that the Mamlatdar was not in Ahmedabad when the trial was going on before the Sessions Court as he had gone to Bombay for training in rationing and that he would not be able to return for a week. It was only on the strength of' that evidence that the learned Sessions Judge brought on record the Mamlatdar's evidence before the committing Magistrate under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and he seems to have; done so readily because the defence advocates had no objection to its being brought on the record. Along with the evidence of the Mamlatdar the learned Judge admitted in evi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 169Ind.Cas.1002
1. This appeal is from the decision and decree passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, 24-Perganas, dismissing a suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of an amount of money due on a promissory note and a deed of agreement.2. The plaintiff by two different registered documents dated October 4, 1929, sold to the defendant a rice mill standing on the lands described in the schedule to the plaint in which the total consideration was stated to be Rs. 26,000, for satisfying a mortgage in favour of the defendant in respect of the properties. Subsequent to that, there was the execution of the promissory note and the agreement in suit by the defendant in the plaintiff's favour on November 20, 1929. The promissory note contained a promise to payeRs. 5,000 while the agreement was to the following effect:That you mortgaged your Emerald Rice Mill along with the lands on which it stands at Shah-pore to me at Rs. 26,000. As you had no other sources to pay the said loa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1933)35BOMLR174
Patkar, J.1. [The judgment states the facts.] The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has urged that there were misdirections and non-directions on points of capital importance to the accused which vitiated the verdict of the jury. It is contended by counsel on behalf of the appellant that as notice is given to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced to that of death, he is entitled to go into the evidence under Sub-section (6) of Section 439, and that in showing cause why the sentence should not be enhanced, he is also entitled to show cause against the conviction. It is further urged that if the Court came to the conclusion that the accused was not guilty, he should be acquitted, but if the Court was not prepared to acquit the accused, ho should not be convicted if the Court came to the conclusion that there was a misdirection to the jury and the accused was entitled to a re-trial. On behalf of the Crown it was urged that there was no misdirection in the cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA THURSDAY, THE31T DAY OF OCTOBER20139TH KARTHIKA, 1935 CRL.A.No. 1178 of 2009 (B ) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC4742006 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED NO.5: -------------------------------------------------- FAISAL, S/O MAKKAR, NAVAS MANZIL, NEAR VYASAPURAM TEMPLE, PANANGAD DESOM KUMBALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (ACCUSED IN CUSTODY). BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.330/2003 HILL PALACE POLICE STATION TRIPUNITHURA). R1 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB, THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON218.2013, ALONG WITH CRA. 1179/2009 & CRA. 1733/2009, THE COURT ON3110-2013, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: [CR] K.T. SANKARAN & B. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1996Raj227; 1996(2)WLC608; 1996(1)WLN400
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant revision petition has been filed against the order dated 17-10-1995 (17-11-1995) passed by learned AdditionalCivil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Jodhpur whereby he refused to take on record a certified copy of the judgment pronounced on 30-5-1980 in Civil Original Suit No. 131/79 and a certified copy of the judgment rendered by him on 16-1-1994 in Civil Original Suit No. 39/90.2. Indisputably, aforementioned two suits were filed by the defendant-revisionist against tenants for eviction from two portions of the disputed house which is subject-matter of the present suit between the parties. It is true that in the aforesaid two suits the non-petitioner was not impleaded as party.3. According to the learned trial Court since both the judgments were given in such suits which were instituted subsequent to the present suit, therefore, these judgments rendered by him are not receivable in evidence. It is further held by the learned trial Court that the provisions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.01.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA S.A(MD)No.315 of 2010 and M.P.(Md.No.1 of 2010 1)P.Veerasamy 2)V.Narayanasamy 3)V.Ramesh 4)V.Soundararajan ..Appellants versus V.Soundararajan ..Respondent Prayer Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2009 made in A.S.No.43 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2008 made in O.S.No.214 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. !For Appellants ..M/s.R.Ramadurai and A.Vadamalai Kannan ^For Respondent ..M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates S.Anand Chandra Sekar :JUDGMENT When a transaction has been reduced to writing, either by requirement of law or by agreement of the parties, the writing becomes the exclusive memorial thereof; and no extrinsic evidence is admissible either to prove independently the tran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1942)44BOMLR295
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit for a declaration that the suit property consisting of land with buildings thereon was of the absolute ownership of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2, and for an injunction restraining defendant No. 1, the Government represented by the Secretary of State for India in Council, from taking vacant possession of the land after removal of the superstructures. An alternative relief was also prayed that if it be held that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 were in possession of the land under a lease of ninety-nine years, the Government should fix a reasonable amount for rent after the expiry of the lease but not take forcible possession of the same.2. The land in suit is situated in a prominent locality in the city of Ahmed-abad. Its present survey number is 4663 corresponding to old city survey Nos. 123 and 235 of L. Tikka No. 3 in the Raikhad ward of Ahmedabad city. Its area is 642 square yards. The plaintiffs' case in substance was that this lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1068; 1981(29)BLJR425; 1981(1)SCALE531; (1981)2SCC493; [1981]3SCR145; 1981(13)LC924(SC)
ORDER1. The question which arises before us for consideration is whether certain documents called for by the Court by its order dated 16th February, 1981 are liable to be produced by the State or their production is barred under some provision of law. The documents called for are set out in the order dated 16th February, 1981 and they are as follows:1. the CID report submitted by L.V. Singh,. DIG, CID (Anti-Dacoity) on December 9, 1980; 2. the CID reports on all the 24 cases submitted by L.V. Singh and his associates between January 10 and January 20, 1981; 3. the letters number 4/R dated 3rd January, 1981 and number 20/R dated 7th January, 1981 from L.V. Singh to the IG, Police; 4. the files containing all correspondence and notings exchange between L.V. Singh, DIG and M.K. Jha, Additional IG, regarding the CID inquiry into the Windings, and5. the file (presently in the office of the IG, S.K. Chatterjee) containing the reports submitted by Inspector and Sub-Inspector of CID to Gajendr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1944Bom29; (1943)45BOMLR924
Chagla, J.1. The plaintiff's evidence is that after the marriage ceremony was performed by the Brahmin he wrote out a document in plaintiff's presence and signed it. Mr. Bhagwati says that he is not in a position to call this Brahmin and he tenders this document under Section 32, Sub-clause (5), of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 32 makes statements of relevant facts relevant in cases where the person making the statement is dead or cannot be found or has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable. In this case Mr, Bhagwati urges that the Brahmin cannot be found and, therefore, Section 32 is applicable.2. It will be noticed that the statement tendered is with reference to one of the most important issues in the case, namely, whether the requisite and essential ceremonies constituting a valid Hindu marriage were or were not performed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1928)30BOMLR818
Sections 153 and 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 must be strictly construed and narrowly interpreted if the Courts governed by that statute are to be spared the task in many suits of prosecuting, on most imperfect material, issues, which have no bearing upon that really in contest between the parties.Semble, Section 158 of the Indian Evidence Act is in accordance with the opinions of the Judges in the case of Attorney-General v. Hitchcock (1847) I Ex. 91.Where, in order to corroborate a witness, a letter written by him was tendered and received in evidence under Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Judicial Committee, in holding that, under the circumstances, the letter was not properly receivable for any purpose, made the following pertinent observations;.' Its contents ought to have been excluded from judicial consideration in all Courts as completely w they have been ignored by their Lordshipa,'Blanesburgh, J.1. [The following portions of their Lordships' judgment only a...
Tag this Judgment!