Skip to content

Chennai Court April 1893 Judgments

Browse smarter

Open an 18-section brief on any judgment

Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.

  • AI Brief & Ask
  • Semantic AI Search
  • Devil's Bench

Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.

Apr 13 1893

Raman Alias thekkadath Nair Vs. K. M. T. Subramania Aiyar

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Apr-13-1893

Reported in: (1893)3MLJ94

1. This was an action for slander, and it was alleged in the plaint that the words complained of were uttered by the defendant, who is the Munsif of Payoli, during the hearing of a suit to which the plaintiff was a party. The District Judge rejected the plaint under Section 54, Civil Procedure Code, holding that the suit was barred under a positive rule of law and that Act XVIII of 1850 applied. The real question for our decision is, can an action for slander be maintained against a judge for words used by him whilst trying a cause in court even though such words were alleged to be false, malicious, and without reasonable cause. This question has long been decided in the negative by the courts in England on the ground of public policy, and we think that the English law is applicable to courts in India. In Scott v. Stansfield, L. R 3 Ex 220 the facts were very similar to the present case, and the Court of Exchequer, consisting of Kelly, G. B, and Martin, Bramwell and Channell, B. B, una...


Apr 13 1893

Raman Nayar Vs. Subramanya Ayyan

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Apr-13-1893

Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad87

1. This was an action for slander, and it was alleged in the plaint that the words complained of were uttered by the defendant, who is the Munsif of Payoli, during the hearing of a suit to which the plaintiff was a party.2. The District Judge rejected the plaint under Section 54(c)1, Civil Procedure Code, holding that the suit was barred under a positive rule of law, and that Act XVIII of 1850 applied.3. The real question for our decision is, can an action for slander be maintained against a Judge for words used by him whilst trying a cause in Court even though such words were alleged to be false, malicious and without reasonable cause.4. This question has long been decided in the negative by the Courts in England on the grounds of public policy, and we think that the English law is applicable to Courts in India. In Scott v. Stansfield L.R. 3 Ex. 220 the facts were very similar to the present case, and the Court of Exchequer consisting of Kelly, C.B., and Martin, Bramwell and Channell,...


Apr 07 1893

H.W. Brown and anr. Vs. T.J. Ferguson

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Apr-07-1893

Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad499

1. In Appeal No. 82 of 1887 on the file of the High Court Mr. Tomlinson's representative obtained a decree against Messrs. Hinde and Ferguson on 26th April 1889 for Rs. 17,349-0-5 with interest at 12 per cent, per annum from 29th April 1882 to date of the decree, and with further interest at 6 per cent per annum till date of payment. He obtained also a declaration that he was entitled to one-fourth of the future profits which might be derived from certain mining rights called the Aliel Concession. In execution of the decree Tomlinson's representatives attached certain moveable properties by Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 16 of 1890, and on the 28thFebruary 1890, Mr. Ferguson applied under Section 344 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be declared an insolvent. He fixed his liabilities at Rs. 3,20,390-1-11 and his assets at Rs. 2,19,679-7-6 up to the 11th February 1890. Three of his creditors, viz., Mr. Tomlinson's representative, Mr. Brown, Messrs. Oakes and Company, and Messrs. Vest ...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial