Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.50 seconds)
A.M. Ross vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 6 February, 1913 cites

The Secretary Of State For India vs J. Moment on 10 December, 1912

However, if the Legislature had such an intention, it is now settled by the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Secretary of State v. Moment (1912) L.R. 40 I.A. 48, that an enactment adding to or taking away from the Usability of the Secretary of State in Council to be sued as settled by the Government of India Act, 1858, is ultra vires of the India Legislature, as opposed to the provisions of the Indian Council's Act, 1861.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

The Secretary Of State For India In ... vs Hari Bhanji And Anr. on 28 April, 1882

This contention was over ruled in a learned judgment distinguishing between acts of State over which the Court has no jurisdiction--as regards which the agent is protected as well as the principal--and acts, such as those in that case and in this, done under colour of Municipal law as to which the agent at any rate is always responsible--The Secretary of State for India v. Hari Bhanji (1882) I.L.R. 5 Mad. 273. The only question before the Appellate Court was one of jurisdiction, and they decided nothing as to the grounds on which liability could be brought home to the Company with success for acts done by public servants in India in oases within the jurisdiction of the Courts. This question was however discussed by Innes, J., at the trial.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

Vijaya Ragava vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 2 May, 1884

16. The plaintiff however relies on the decision of Kernan, Muthuswami Ayyar and Hutchins, JJ. in Vijaya Ragava v. The Secretary of State for India (1884) I.L.R. 7 Mad. At pp. 478, 486 and 487, 466, that the Secretary of State in Council was liable in damages for the illegal action of the Governor of Madras in removing the plaintiff from the Office of Municipal Councillor under the Towns Improvement Act (III of 1870). That decision does not proceed expressly on the ground that the Company would have been liable like an ordinary employer for acts done by its servants in the course of its employment; and indeed this part of the case appears to have received very little consideration.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Nobin Chunder Dey vs The Secretary Of State For India on 13 July, 1875

12. That was all that was decided, but certain dicta in the judgment wore subsequently interpreted by the Calcutta High Court in Nobin Chunder Dey v. The Secretary of State for India (1876) I.L.R. 1 Calc. 11 as asserting the immunity of the Company from suit in respect of all acts done in the exercise of sovereign powers whether the suit was based on contract or on tort, thus conferring on the Company a larger immunity than is enjoyed by the Crown in England.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1