Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-14-1895
Reported in : (1895)ILR22Cal928
Prinsep and Ghose, JJ.1. This is an application for a certificate to appeal to the Privy Council against an order of a Division Bench of this Court refusing the plaintiff in the suit the appointment of a Receiver in the terms required by him.2. The application is opposed, and we have had considerable argument addressed to us as to whether this is a proper matter in which a certificate can be granted within the terms of Section 596 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which embodies the provisions of Sections 39 and 40 of the Letters Patent, 1866.3. In order to entitle a party to a certificate under Clauses (a) and (b), Section 595 of the Code, or Section 39 of the Letters Patent, it is necessary, in a matter of this description, that the order passed shall be a final decree, which, under the definition given in Section 594 of the Code, may be a final judgment and order. It is contended by Mr. Hill, who appears for the petitioner, that the order of the Division Bench of this Court comes with...
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!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-14-1895
Reported in : (1896)ILR23Cal87
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The two questions which have been referred to this Bench do not depend on the same considerations, and I prefer to answer the second before the first.2. If the plaintiff in the case of Dhoronidhur Sen v. Wajidunnissa I.L.R. 16 Cal. 708 had, when he brought his suit, a cause of action against the defendant, which he was then entitled to enforce against him, but the evidence to enable him to establish which was then, defective, because his title had not been registered, and if such defect of proof had been cured by registration before the final hearing, then I think the case of Dhoronidhnr Sen v. Wajidunnissa Khatoon I.L.R. 16 Cal. 708 was wrongly decided. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendant, which, when he brought his suit, he had the right to enforce by action against him, then in my opinion the case was rightly decided, as such a defect cannot be cured by anything which is done after the suit has been commenced.3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-05-1895
Reported in : (1896)ILR19Mad200
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. This is a suit by the official liquidators of an association, called the Madras Hindu Mutual Benefit Permanent Fund for the recovery of Rs. 4,845-4-0 by the sale of two houses in Triplicane mortgaged under an instrument, dated the 16th December 1868, executed by the father of the defendants, the late Parthasarathi Chetti, a member of the association, for Rs. 3,750 lent to him as such member under the rules of the association. The loan and the mortgage are admitted, and it is only on questions of law that the parties are at issue.2. The first of the questions is whether the mortgage sued upon is an illegal transaction as is contended on behalf of the defendants. The validity of this contention depends upon the answer to the question whether the said association is one falling within the latter part of Section 4 of the Indian Companies Act, which runs as follows:No company, association, or partnership consisting of more-than twenty persons shall be formed after the...
Tag this Judgment!