Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-23-1908
Reported in : (1908)18MLJ497
Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal under Article 15 of the Letters Patent, the learned Judges before whom the case came on second appeal having differed in opinion. The plaintiffs claim damages for the loss of 246 bags of rice out of a consignment of 4,000 bags carried by the defendants under a bill of lading from Rangoon to Tuticorin. These 246 bags with others were destroyed by the Municipal authorities after they had been landed, on account of their damaged condition. The plaintiffs alleged the damage was occasioned by the negligence of the defendants or their agents.2. The two main questions for consideration are:(1) On the facts were the defendants negligent? (2) If they were, are they protected by the terms of the bill of lading? The Court of first instance and the lower appellate Court held that there had been no negligence on the part of the defendants. The two learned Judges of this Court who heard the case on second appeal were both of opinion that the defendants had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-20-1908
Reported in : (1909)ILR36Cal141
R.F. Rampini, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Geidt.2. The appeal arises out of a suit for compensation for the illegal distress, and the cutting and carrying off of standing crops. Mr. Justice Geidt relying on the decision of this Court in Mohesh Chandra Das v. Hari Kar (1905) 9 C.W.N. 376, has held that the Article of the Limitation Act applicable is Article 36, and that the suit is accordingly barred as brought more than two years after the accrual of the cause of action.3. On behalf of the plaintiff it has been contended that Mr. Justice Geidt's decision is wrong, and that the Article applicable is not Article 36, but some other Article allowing 3 years for the suit and that the case relied on by Mr. Justice Geidt is at variance with the Full Bench decision in Mangun Jha v. Dolhin Golab Koer (1898) I.L.R. 25 Calc. 692.4. I am unable, however, to see that Mr. Justice Geidt's judgment is wrong. I consider that the Article of the Schedule to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-20-1908
Reported in : 1Ind.Cas.788
Robert Rampini, Acting C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Geidt.2. The appeal arises cut of a suit for compensation for the illegal distress, and the cutting and carrying off of standing crops. Mr. Justice Geidt relying on the decision of this Court in Mohesh Chandra Das v. Hari Kar (1905) 9 C.W.N. 376; (Sub-nomine Hari Charan Fadikar v. Hari Kar) 32 C. 459, has held that the article of the Limitation Act applicable is Article 36, and that the suit is accordingly barred as brought more than two years after the accrual of the cause of action.3. On behalf of the plaintiff it has been contended that Mr. Justice Geidt's decision is wrong, and that the article applicable is not Article 36, but some ether article allowing 3 years for the suit and that the case relied on by Mr. Justice Geidt is at variance with the Full Bench decision in Mangun Jha v. Dolhin Golab Koer 25 C. 692.4. I am unable, however, to see that Mr. Justice Geidt's judgment is wrong. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-15-1908
Reported in : 1Ind.Cas.977
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Article 15 of the Letters Patent, the learned Judges before whom the case came on second appeal having differed in opinion. The plaintiffs claim damages for the loss of 246 bags of rice out of a consignment of 4,000 bags carried by the defendants under a bill of lading from Rangoon to Tuticorin. These 246 bags with others were destroyed by the municipal authorities after they had been landed, on account of their damaged condition. The plaintiffs alleged the damage was occasioned by the negligence of the defendants or their agents.2. The two main questions for consideration are: (1) On the facts were the defendants negligent? (2) If they were, are they protected by the terms of the bill of lading? The Court of First Instance and the lower appellate Court held that there had been no negligence on the part of the defendants. The two learned Judges of this Court who heard the case on second appeal were both of opinion that the defendants had bee...
Tag this Judgment!