Kolkata Court September 1901 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: the telena
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-25-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal402
Harington, J.1. You must show that the ship has, in maritime language, done the damage. And some authority must be shown that the damage as caused in the present case entitled the parties to proceed in rem.2. I submit that the words 'damage done by a ship' mean the damage done by any negligent act or behaviour of those in charge of the ship; and, inasmuch as the damage in the present case has been occasioned by a negligent act on the part of the crew of the Telena, namely, the discharge of a large quantity of oil in the dock, I am entitled to a warrant for her arrest.Harington, J.3. Can you cite any case where a warrant of arrest was issued when the injury was not directly caused by the ship or her crew4. In the present instance there was a direct wrongful act on the part of the crew of the Telena; and the injury was caused by the dangerous position in which the Croydon was placed: see The Industrie (1871) L. R. 3 Ad. & Eccl. 303., The Batavier (1889) L. R. 15 P. D. 37., The Clara Kill...
Ram NaraIn Roy Vs. Baij Nath Malla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal36
Maclean, C.J.1. This case comes before me under Section 575 of the Civil Procedure Code by reason of a difference of opinion between Mr. Justice Rampini and Mr. Justice Gupta.2. The suit was a suit for recovery of a small amount of rent. The parties went to arbitration: the arbitrators made their award and submitted their decision on the 26th July 1899. On the 7th of August 1899, the defendant presented a petition asking to have the award set aside on various allegations and those allegations, if true, amount to serious misconduct on the part of the arbitrators.3. The Munsif held that the applicant was out of time. Then there was an appeal to the Subordinate Judge, who held that he was in time and remanded the application to be tried out on the merits. There was then an appeal to this Court with the difference of opinion to which I have referred.4. The only question is, whether the application to set aside the award was or was not out of time, and the answer depends upon whether or not...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›