Skip to content


Emperor Vs. D - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in152Ind.Cas.43
AppellantEmperor
RespondentD
Excerpt:
legal practitioners act (xviii of 1879), section 14 - charge under section 14 against pleader--when can be taken - m. c. ghose, j.1. upon hearing dr. basak in support of the reference and mr. mukerji on behalf of the pleader against whom these proceedings were started, we are of opinion, upon consideration of all the circumstances, that it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the pleader d actually signed the petition of compromise which was put in. it is true that the munsif, who tried the suit, found against the pleader but, on appeal, the additional district judge disbelieved the evidence and came to the conclusion, as a final judge of fact, that it was not established that d signed the petition. in this view of the matter we are of opinion that the charge framed against him has not been established. the reference is rejected.williams, j. 2. i agree.
Judgment:

M. C. Ghose, J.

1. Upon hearing Dr. Basak in support of the reference and Mr. Mukerji on behalf of the pleader against whom these proceedings were started, we are of opinion, upon consideration of all the circumstances, that it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the pleader D actually signed the petition of compromise which was put in. It is true that the Munsif, who tried the suit, found against the pleader but, on appeal, the Additional District Judge disbelieved the evidence and came to the conclusion, as a final Judge of fact, that it was not established that D signed the petition. In this view of the matter we are of opinion that the charge framed against him has not been established. The reference is rejected.

Williams, J.

2. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //