Kolkata Court May 1914 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.
Syed Abdullah HossaIn Chowdhury Vs. Ananda Chandra Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal679,24Ind.Cas.273
1. This is an application by one who desires to appeal to Hi Majesty in Council for a certificate that as regards amount or value and nature the case, fulfils the requirements of Section 110 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. It is conceded that if the application is within time a certificate ought to issue : it is, however, contended that the appeal is not within the period of six calendar months prescribed by the Order in Council of 1838. To this it is answered that the application is within six months from the date of the decree appealed from if, in computing the period of limitation, the time requiste for obtaining a copy of the decree is excluded.3. The Order in Council does not expressly allow this inclusion, but the Limitation Act of 1908, Section 12, purports to direct it. The question for our decision is whether it was within the competence of the Indian Legislature to enact this provision. The Governor-General in Council has power at legislative meetings to make laws for all Cour...
Madras Steam Navigation Co. Ld. Vs. Shalimar Works, Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal681,(1915)ILR42Cal85,28Ind.Cas.463
Jenkins, C.J.1. On the 4th June 1910, a company called the Shalimar Works, Limited, instituted a suit in rem against the vessel, Clan Macintosh, for an amount alleged to be due to them for that which is described in the plaint in this suit and has throughout been treated as maritime necessaries.2. On the same day the vessel was arrested, and she thenceforth remained under arrest until her release on the 31st January 1912, the suit in rem having been dismissed two days earlier.3. On the 4th June 1912, the present suit was instituted on the ordinary original side of this Court claiming damages for the wrongful arrest.4. In the plaint it is alleged that the plaintiff company is the owner of the ship, that the defendant company instituted the suit in rem 'falsely alleging therein that a sum of Rs. 89,187-12 was due to the defendant company for maritime necessaries supplied to the said vessel and maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause procured a warrant of arrest from the said...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›