Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Gilby Vs. Subbu Pillai

Gilby vs Subbu Pillai

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 17, 1883
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/783437

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Act XIII of 1859 - Workman--Contractor, Liability of--. - - As the Act applies to cases in which the workman has undertaken to get work performed, as well as to cases in which he undertakes personally to perform it, there may be cases in which a contractor is liable to proceedings under the Act;

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gilby

Respondent

Subbu Pillai

Legal References

Reported In
(1883)ILR7Mad100

Excerpt

act xiii of 1859 - workman--contractor, liability of--. - - as the act applies to cases in which the workman has undertaken to get work performed, as well as to cases in which he undertakes personally to perform it, there may be cases in which a contractor is liable to proceedings under the act;charles a. turner, kt., c.j.1. the object of the act was to provide a remedy for fraudulent breaches of contract by workmen, artificers or labourers, who have received advances of money for work they have undertaken to perform or get performed, such persons being, from want of means, ordinarily unable to make compensation when sued for damages. as the act applies to cases in which the workman has undertaken to get work performed, as well as to cases in which he undertakes personally to perform it, there may be cases in which a contractor is liable to proceedings under the act; but the court agrees with the district magistrate that the contractor must be himself a workman, and the evidence warranted the district magistrate in finding in this case that accused, whose ordinary business is that of a contracting bricklayer, and who does not himself work, was not a workman within the meaning of the act with reference to the contract for earthwork, which is the subject of the proceedings.2. the court will, therefore, not interfere.

Full Judgment

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. The object of the Act was to provide a remedy for fraudulent breaches of contract by workmen, artificers or labourers, who have received advances of money for work they have undertaken to perform or get performed, such persons being, from want of means, ordinarily unable to make compensation when sued for damages. As the Act applies to cases in which the workman has undertaken to get work performed, as well as to cases in which he undertakes personally to perform it, there may be cases in which a contractor is liable to proceedings under the Act; but the Court agrees with the District Magistrate that the contractor must be himself a workman, and the evidence warranted the District Magistrate in finding in this case that accused, whose ordinary business is that of a contracting bricklayer, and who does not himself work, was not a workman within the meaning of the Act with reference to the contract for earthwork, which is the subject of the proceedings.

2. The Court will, therefore, not interfere.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial