Bishambar Nath Vs. Gaddar

Bishambar Nath vs Gaddar

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 05, 1910

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/474331

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/474331
Court: Allahabad
Judge: John Stanley, C.J. and ;Banerji, J.
Decided On: Dec 05, 1910
Subject: Miscellaneous

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Wrongful attachment of property - Attached property stolen during attachment--Liability of person who obtained the attachment--Damages--Trespass--Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887), Schedule II, Article 35(j)--Jurisdiction. -

Key legal issue: Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bishambar Nath

Respondent

Gaddar

Legal References

Cases Referred: Goma Mahad Patil v. Gokal Das Khimji
Reported In: 9Ind.Cas.317

Excerpt

wrongful attachment of property - attached property stolen during attachment--liability of person who obtained the attachment--damages--trespass--provincial small cause courts act (ix of 1887), schedule ii, article 35(j)--jurisdiction. - 1. we are of opinion that, the view taken by our learned colleague is correct. it is based on the ruling in goma mahad patil v. gokal das khimji 3 b. 74 with which ruling we agree. the cases which have been relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant appear to us to be distinguishable. the correctness of the decision in the case of goma mahad patil v. gokal das khimji 3 b. 74 has never, so far as we are aware, been questioned. we dismiss the appeal with costs.

Full Judgment

1. We are of opinion that, the view taken by our learned colleague is correct. It is based on the ruling in Goma Mahad Patil v. Gokal Das Khimji 3 B. 74 with which ruling we agree. The cases which have been relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant appear to us to be distinguishable. The correctness of the decision in the case of Goma Mahad Patil v. Gokal Das Khimji 3 B. 74 has never, so far as we are aware, been questioned. We dismiss the appeal with costs.

Same Parties Bishambar Nath vs Gaddar Same Subject Miscellaneous Same Judge John Stanley, C.J. and ;Banerji, J.

Miscellaneous