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.

In Re: Kalu Mal Khetri

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Apr 30, 1902
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/857358

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
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise - Commission by servant of licensed manufacturer or vendor of act in breach of conditions of license--Liability of servant--Bengal Excise Act (Bengal Act VII of 1878) Section 59. -

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Kalu Mal Khetri

Legal References

Cases Referred
Empress v. Baney Madhub Shaw
Reported In
(1902)ILR29Cal606

Excerpt

excise - commission by servant of licensed manufacturer or vendor of act in breach of conditions of license--liability of servant--bengal excise act (bengal act vii of 1878) section 59. - maclean, c.j.1. in my opinion the question submitted to us ought to be answered in the negative. i agree with the views expressed in the cases of the empress v. nuddiar chand shaw (1881) i. l. r. 6 calc. 832. and with that expressed in the case of in the matter of nomullu akond (1882) 11 c. l. r. 416. i think it would be difficult to hold, having regard to the language of the section, especially to the words 'such fine shall be recoverable from such manufacturer or vendor, notwithstanding that such a breach may have been owing to the default or carelessness of the servant or other persons employed by him,' that the servant or the person employed can be properly held liable.2. with respect to the cases which take an opposite view, and with all respect to the opinions expressed in the case of empress v. baney madhub shaw (1881) i. l. r. 8 calc. 207., which followed that decided by sir richard couch c.j., and glover j., in the case of ishur chunder shaha (1873) 19 w. r. cr. 34., it is sufficient to point out that the language of the. act under which the latter of these decisions was given is clearly distinguishable from the language of the present act, and in the important particular that the words, to which i have referred, are not to be found in the earlier act.prinsep, j.3. i am of the same opinion.ghose, j.4. i am of the same opinion.hill, j.5. i am of the same opinion.henderson, j.6. i am of the same opinion.

Full Judgment

Maclean, C.J.

1. In my opinion the question submitted to us ought to be answered in the negative. I agree with the views expressed in the cases of The Empress v. Nuddiar Chand Shaw (1881) I. L. R. 6 Calc. 832. and with that expressed in the case of In the matter of Nomullu Akond (1882) 11 C. L. R. 416. I think it would be difficult to hold, having regard to the language of the section, especially to the words 'such fine shall be recoverable from such manufacturer or vendor, notwithstanding that such a breach may have been owing to the default or carelessness of the servant or other persons employed by him,' that the servant or the person employed can be properly held liable.

2. With respect to the cases which take an opposite view, and with all respect to the opinions expressed in the case of Empress v. Baney Madhub Shaw (1881) I. L. R. 8 Calc. 207., which followed that decided by Sir Richard Couch C.J., and Glover J., in the case of Ishur Chunder Shaha (1873) 19 W. R. Cr. 34., it is sufficient to point out that the language of the. Act under which the latter of these decisions was given is clearly distinguishable from the language of the present Act, and in the important particular that the words, to which I have referred, are not to be found in the earlier Act.

Prinsep, J.

3. I am of the same opinion.

Ghose, J.

4. I am of the same opinion.

Hill, J.

5. I am of the same opinion.

Henderson, J.

6. I am of the same opinion.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial