Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Limitation Act, 1963
Behary Lall Trigunait vs Darby on 24 July, 1894
5. Babu Dasarathi Sanyul (Babu Amarendra Nath Bose with him) for the petitioner. The question for your Lordships' decision in this reference is,--whether the possession of a manager is the kind of possession contemplated in Clauses (i) and (iv) of Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case of Jhabti Singh v. Rutherford (1902) 7 C.W.N. 208 was, I submit, correctly decided Possession means actual juridical possession, and not the possession through a manager, who has no interest except as such, or possession except as representing the company: see Behary Lall Trigunait v. Darby (1894) I.L.R. 21 Calc. 915. The order in that case was made in favour of Mr. Darby, who was the manager of the Jheria and Katras Coal Company. That order was set aside by Petheram C.J, and Rampini, J., on the ground that Mr. Darby had no interest except as a manager, his possession not being the kind of possession contemplated by Section 145; and that the proprietors who were the parties interested were not before the Court.
Section 6 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 47 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bathoo Lal And Anr. vs Domi Lal And Anr. on 5 June, 1894
Under Section 147 of the present Code, relating to disputes concerning easements, which is analogous to Section 145, it has been held that the proper parties ' to the proceedings were the persons claiming a proprietary interest, and that the manager of a coal syndicate against whom an order was made and who was not shown to have had any interest in the land upon which the disputed right of way was claimed, was not a proper party to such proceedings: Millar v. Rajendra Nath Chowdhry (1898) 2 W.W.P. 670 and Bathoo Lal v. Domi Lal (1894) I.L.R. 21 Calc. 727. Suppose a final order under Section 145 were made against a manager, the proprietor could easily evade such order by appointing another manager in place of the one against whom the order was made. For the above reasons, it is submitted that the possession of a manager is not the kind of possession contemplated by Section 145 of the Code, and that the' question referred to the Full Bench should be answered in the negative.
Nritto Lall Mitter vs Rajendro Narain Deb And Ors. on 4 April, 1895
The word "possession" in Section 145 of the Code has, I submit, the same meaning is the word "possession" in Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, namely, actual juridical possession: see Nritto Lall Mitter v. Rajendro Narain Deb (1895) I.L.R. 22 Calc. 562. The words "evicted therefrom in due course of law" as also the language of Article 47 of the Limitation Act of 1877 are in favour of my contention. If an order under Section 155 of the Code is made in favour of a manager, he cannot be sued in a Civil Court, because the action has to be brought against the proprietor. The view I am contending for was adopted in several decisions under the earlier Codes?
1