Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-17-1895
Reported in : (1895)ILR22Cal692
Norris, J.1. This appeal, and the analogous appeals, Nos. 951, 952 and 953 of 1893, were heard by Banerjee and Rampini, JJ., and the learned Judges having differed on a point of law, the appeals have, under Section 5751 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 587, been referred to me by order of the Chief Justice.2. The facts out of which the appeal arises are as follows: In 1292 B.S., six persons, viz;., the defendant No. 5, the husband of the defendant No. 2, the husband of the defendant No. 25, and brother-in-law of defendant No. 26, the father of the defendants Nos. 11 and 12, the defendant No. 9, and one Kebulram Shaha, entered into partnership for the purpose of carrying on a business in hemp at Sunamgunge. The defendant No. 10 was the gomasta of the business. He was remunerated by a 2 annas 10 gundas share of the profits; the remaining profits were divisible amongst the six partners in certain shares which are set out in Schedule I of the plaint. In 1293 B.S., the cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-20-1895
Reported in : (1895)ILR22Cal943
Hill, J.1. This is a suit by a firm of solicitors carrying on business under the style of Watkins and Co., and the legal representative of Mr. Algernon F. N. Watkins, a deceased member of the firm, for the recovery of the costs of certain proceedings in this Court, under Section 24 of Act XY of 1859. The object of those proceedings was to effect the revocation of a patent held by two persons, named Thomson and Mylne, for a sugar-crushing machine.2. The plaintiffs' case is that the first defendant, Mr. Neil Fox, consulted their firm so far back as the year 1885, with respect to the revocation of Messrs. Thomson and Mylne's patent, representing that he did so, not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of other persons, who were interested in getting the patent set aside, and that in pursuance of his instructions the proceeding mentioned above was instituted on the 26th May 1887. In consequence, however, of the circumstance that Mr. Neil Fox was himself a licensee under the patent it...
Tag this Judgment!