Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.06 seconds)
Documents citing Madras Steam Navigation Co. Ld. vs Shalimar Works, Ld. on 2 May, 1914

Sm. Kalyani Dassi vs Ganesh Chandra Sreemany And Ors. on 8 June, 1931

8. I find myself unable to agree with my learned brothers' general proposition that a paragraph in the plaint stating that the plaintiff's cause of action arose on such1]1 and such a date is either wholly insufficient or useless or unnecessary. That; will be the case if the date upon which the cause of action arose is otherwise alleged specifically. But if that has not been done in stating the facts which constitute the cause of action, which method I agree is to be preferred, then, in my judgment, the plaintiff should be required to allege the date specifically, though whether he does so in a separate paragraph or not is a matter of no account, but whatever form is adopted the defendant should be able to ascertain from the pleading upon which day the cause of action is alleged to have arisen. Madras Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Shalimar Works Ltd. [1915] 42 Cal. 85 case explains the need for this. Formerly, it was not the practice to state on what day the cause of action arose, and apparently in that case the suit in form was for the malicious abuse of the process of the Court, but the only case made on appeal was trespass pure and simple, and the day on which the cause of action was alleged to have arisen had not been stated. It was to avoid the recurrence of consideration to which this gave rise that the learned Chief Justice gave his direction, I have no doubt, and the statement in the plaint alleging when the cause of action arose whether if is to be found in the statement of facts constituting the cause of action, or whether it is to be found in another paragraph should be such as not to admit of argument as to what it is intended to allege.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Albert Bonnan vs Imperial Tobacco Co. (India) Ltd. on 25 January, 1925

So in the case of Madras Steam Navigation Co. v. Shalimar Works Ltd. 28 Ind. Cas. 463 : 42 C. 85, already mentioned, an action in rem against a vessel had been instituted in this Court in its admiralty jurisdiction. The vessel was arrested but the suit was subsequently dismissed for want of' jurisdiction. In a suit by the owners for damages for the arrest on the footing of trespass, Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C.J., held that the action based on trespass would not lie, and he also refers to the fact that the "arrestment of the ship is a judicial act of the Court and an ordinary step in an action in rem. So, where it constitutes a legal grievance, it is not an independent wrong, but an integral part of an action in rem in which there was malice, or its equivalent, entitling the aggrieved person to seek compensation either in the admiralty proceedings or by separate action" and (at page 109) he adds that ''in the absence of proof of malice or its equivalent the suit if treated as one for trespass, will not lie in the circumstances of this case."
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Admiralty Jurisdication

. '» e I .tion relation to the extent of admiralty 'l11'l$diCtlgl11::.llIlo6bSlf}I3w?gr :::)rl1]]'S'i:l.€l'tE}l1tl0Ic'iJ2tl?t€r the proiiiulgation of the Constitution iaefore the cams and the Bombay nigh courts. Though the admiralty wris- diction has been extended to a considerable extent in England by the laws _made by the British Parliament but since these laws could not be made applicable to India the admiralty jurisdiction of the Hi Courts continued to regiam some as conferred on them by 1891 Act. _ e Calcutta High Court ism _ a suit for a claim for necessaries supplied in the port at Calcutta to a ship 17 registered in Madras and the owner of which was domiciled in India on the ground that since the owner of the ship had domiciled in the country, the sup- plier could seek his remedy by the ordinary process of law in the ordinary civil courts. While considering the extent of the admiralty jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. Justice Mal-:hcrjee held that in view of the Admiralty C01" Act I351: ti"? iffflsdiction of the Calcutta High Court was limited'. The Calcutta High Court Ill an earlier case of Madras Steam Navigation Company Ltd. V. Shalimar Works Ltd." had interpreted the extent or admiralty jurisdiction, in a restrictive manner by referring to clause 2(3)(a) of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890.
Law Commission Report Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.V. Tongli Yantai vs Great Pacific Navigation (Holdings) ... on 17 September, 2018

In Madras Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. vs. Shalimar Works Ltd. 4, a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court considered the nature of a suit for compensation for wrongful arrest. The Court held it to be a suit claiming damages for wrongful seizure under legal process, covered by Article 29 of Limitation Act, 1908 (which is an equivalent of Article 80 of Limitation Act, 1963). The matter having been extensively and ably argued by both sides and the judgment of Calcutta High Court having been submitted to a close scrutiny, I would not like to simply follow the dicta of that judgment, but would rather deal with the issue at length both on principle and authority.
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - S C Gupte - Full Document

Apeejay House Pvt. Ltd. vs Punjab National Bank on 15 January, 2007

In the case of Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (supra), the suit was founded on the allegation of commission of two torts, being malicious abuse of the process of the Court, and that of trespass. There were separate periods of limitation prescribed for instituting suits founded on these two torts, and it appears from the judgment that there was no statement in the plaint as regards the date on which cause of action arose in the plaint. But the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court did not dismiss the suit for failure to comply with the requirements of Order 7 and finding was given on this aspect, visa-vis the allegations made on both these torts.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A Bose - Full Document
1   2 Next