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.

Wallis and ors. Vs. Taylor

Wallis and ors. vs Taylor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Apr 03, 1886
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/864183

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
Civil

Case Summary

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

Small Cause Court Presidency Towns Act (XV of 1882), Section 18--Jurisdiction--Army Act of 1881 (44 & 45 Vic., Clause 58), Sections 148, 151--Leave to sue. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Wallis and ors.

Respondent

Taylor

Legal References

Reported In
(1886)ILR13Cal37

Excerpt

small cause court presidency towns act (xv of 1882), section 18--jurisdiction--army act of 1881 (44 & 45 vic., clause 58), sections 148, 151--leave to sue. - pigot, j.1. it appears to us clear that the small cause court has jurisdiction in such a case as the present.2. by the small cause court act, jurisdiction is expressly conferred on small cause courts, in cases the facts of which are such as those appearing here; and all that has to be considered in this case is, whether there is any provision in the army act of 1881 which takes away that jurisdiction.3. we are of opinion that there is none. the doubt which has been felt in the matter arises from its being apparently supposed, that the words 'shall be cognizable' in section 151 of the army act, mean 'shall be cognizable only.'4. we are of opinion that there is nothing in that section of the army act, either in express words or by reasonable inference, to lead us to believe that it was the intention of the legislature in that section to affect the jurisdiction of the small cause courts. we therefore answer the question referred to us in the affirmative.5. we think it desirable to add that the discretion of the small cause courts in giving leave to sue under section 18 of act xv of 1882 is one that ought to be only very cautiously exercised, in cases such as the one before us.

Full Judgment

Pigot, J.

1. It appears to us clear that the Small Cause Court has jurisdiction in such a case as the present.

2. By the Small Cause Court Act, jurisdiction is expressly conferred on Small Cause Courts, in cases the facts of which are such as those appearing here; and all that has to be considered in this case is, whether there is any provision in the Army Act of 1881 which takes away that jurisdiction.

3. We are of opinion that there is none. The doubt which has been felt in the matter arises from its being apparently supposed, that the words 'shall be cognizable' in Section 151 of the Army Act, mean 'shall be cognizable only.'

4. We are of opinion that there is nothing in that section of the Army Act, either in express words or by reasonable inference, to lead us to believe that it was the intention of the legislature in that section to affect the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Courts. We therefore answer the question referred to us in the affirmative.

5. We think it desirable to add that the discretion of the Small Cause Courts in giving leave to sue under Section 18 of Act XV of 1882 is one that ought to be only very cautiously exercised, in cases such as the one before us.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial