Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)Arjan Biswas And Ors. vs Abdul Biswas And Ors. on 27 June, 1921
6. There can be no doubt that if, for example a bankruptcy petition results in adjudication, the Court will not entertain a claim for damages for malicious prosecution on the part of the person adjudicated so long as the adjudication order stands: Metropolitan Bank v. Pooley [1885] 10 A. C. 210. in the case of Arjun Biswas v. Abdul Biswas A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 774 which came before Chatterji and Pearson, JJ., this principle was reaffirmed and it was given as one of the reasons which led those learned Judges to doubt whether it was true that Article 29 could be applicable to a case where it was said that the order for attachment had been wrongly procured. It was observed by the learned Judges as follows:
Madras Steam Navigation Co. Ld. vs Shalimar Works, Ld. on 2 May, 1914
But as he preferred the view that had been taken in the Madras Steam Navigation Company's case [1915] 42 Cal. 85 he dismissed the suit entirely on the ground of limitation.
The Pannaji Devi Chand, A Marwadi Firm ... vs The Firm Of Senaji Kapur Chand on 6 February, 1930
85as well as by what was laid down in Pannaji Devi Chand & Co. v. Sanaji Kapur Chand A.I.R. 1930 Mad. 635.
The Limitation Act, 1963
1