Kolkata Court September 1880 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.
In Re: Upendro Lall Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal675
Richard Garth, C.J.1. There is no doubt that the plaint in this case has been verified in an irregular way; but having heard Mr. Kennedy's explanation, we have already informed him, in the course of the argument, that we entirely acquit his client of any intentional impropriety.2. The mistake which he has made in the form of verification has evidently arisen from his confounding the permission to verify the plaint itself, which is provided for by Section 51 of the Code, with the power to sign the plaint on behalf of his client, which is provided for in the addition to that section made by the amending Act XII of 1879, Section 11.3. He obtained leave upon the usual petition to verify the plaint himself, and then, instead of doing so, he signed the plaintiff's own name to the verification, describing himself as the plaintiff's attorney for that purpose.4. The result is, that neither the plaintiff nor his attorney could be made criminally responsible for any false statements there may be ...
Freck Vs. Harley
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal418
Richard Garth, C.J.1. It appears to us that the real answer to this suit was rather a matter of law than of jurisdiction, but we think that the questions referred to should be answered as follows:2. (i) A plea to the jurisdiction is a plea in bar; and, therefore, the proper judgment would be, that the suit be dismissed; but whatever may be the form used, it should be stated that the suit abates or is dismissed 'for want of jurisdiction,' otherwise the plaintiff might be prejudiced when he brings his suit in another Court.3. (ii) We think that the Court has power in such a case to award costs to the defendant. The question of jurisdiction is one which the Court is bound to try, and as the plaintiff invites the trial by bringing his suit, it is only right that he should pay costs if he turns out to be wrong. It appears to us that the cases of Lawford v. Partridge (1 H. & N., 621) and Peacock v. The Queen (4 C. B., N. S., 264, at p. 278) have been virtually overruled by the case of McInto...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›