Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)
Kamala Prosad Sukul vs Chandra Nath Pramanik And Ors. on 3 August, 1927 cites

Cutler Palmer And Co. vs The British India Steam Navigation Co., ... on 16 March, 1898

The rule has been said by very high authority as having, been too widely laid down and it has been said that it is to be taken with the qualification that it will hold1 if the nature of the case is such that the plaintiff must be presumed to have known that, he was doing an unlawful act : See Pollock on the Law of Torts, 10th edn., p. 207, referring to the dicta of Lord Herschell in Palmer v. Wick Steam Shipping Co. [1894] A.C. 318; Per Bruce, J., in The Englishman and The Australia [1895] P. 212 and Burrows v. Rhodes [1899] 1 Q.B. 816 : see also Adamson v. Jarvis [1827] 4 Bing. 66.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Ram Ratan Kapali And Ors. vs Aswini Kumar Dutt And Ors. on 15 March, 1910

12. No doubt, as a general rule the liability of joint wrongdoers in tort is joint and several, but it is not an inflexible rule which needs no relaxation according to the view that is taken of jointness of the act or acts which constitute the wrong. Mookerjee, J., in an elaborate judgment in the case of Ram Ratan Kapali v. Aswini Kumar Butt [1910] 37 Cal. 559, in which he has exhaustively dealt with the question, has observed thus:
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Raja Promode Nath Roy And Ors. vs Secretary Of State For India And Ors. on 9 June, 1926

13. In that case it was held that in respect of mesne profits which accrue during the pendency of a suit for possession, the liability of different tenure-holders of the same degree, and1 of separate trader-tenure-holders of different degrees, should1 b& apportioned according to the share of the profits intercepted by each. Thisdecision has been dissented from by Page, J., in the case of Promode Nath Roy v. Secy. of State . With great respect, however, I venture to think that the judgment of Mookerjee, J., carefully ready appears to except from the general rule1 cases in which the tort-feassors are not really joint and are, therefore, persons-to whom the rule does not apply and, in my opinion, therefore, the judgment is unexceptionable.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1