Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.17 seconds)
Lachmi Narain And Ors. vs Parsotam Das Kolapuri And Ors. on 21 July, 1922 cites

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

The case, however, was considered in Palmer v. Wick Steam Shipping Co. (1894) A.C. 318 by the House of Lords. In that case the family of a man, who had boon killed by the fall of a block which was part of the ship's tackle while unloading the vessel, brought two suits (in Scotland) for damages: (1) against the Shipping Company for negligence in supplying weak tackle, and (2) against Palmer, a stevedore, for negligence in using the same. The two suits were consolidated, and on the finding of the jury against the defendants, a joint decree was passed against them both for damages and costs. The whole amount was paid by the Shipping Company, who then brought this suit against Palmer for contribution of half the damages and half the costs. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the Shipping Company "being joint wrong-doers with Palmer, had no ground for relief." On appeal this judgment was set aside and the Company's suit was decreed in full, and this was affirmed by the House of Lords, on the ground that the Company's claim rested on a decree which created a civil debt.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Fakire And Ors. vs Tasadduq Husain And Ors. on 5 May, 1897

10. Various cases from the Indian Law Reports have also been cited. Fakire v. Tasadduq Husain (1897) I.L.R. 19 All. 462 was a suit for contribution by one defendant against his co-defendants, and it was dismissed on the ground that it ''lay upon the plaintiff to show that there was either some contract between him and the defendants, or some equity which created a duty on these defendants to contribute to the costs in question as between themselves. Apparently the plaintiff and defendants here were wrongdoers. They were holding on to property to which the plaintiff in the former suit was entitled, and to which they (or either, or any of them) were not entitled. Each was acting independently and for his own benefit, and setting up a title against the plaintiff to the former suit which was independent of, and separate from, and inconsistent with, the title set up by the other defendants. Their claims were mutually exclusive: There was no contract between them. One was not acting as the servant of the other; and there was no equity between these persons whose cases were antagonistic to each other."
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

H.H. Mir Abdul Hussain Khan vs Mussammat Bibi Sona Dero on 30 October, 1917

In coming to this conclusion, reliance was placed on the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Abdul Wahid Khan v. Shaluka Bibi (1893) I.L.R. 21 Calc 496 where their Lordships say:-- "In the present appeal the defendant claimed to be allowed a proportion of those costs on the ground that the plaintiffs had got the benefit of the reversal of the decree of the Judicial Commissioner. This is not a ground for making the plaintiffs liable for any portion of those costs. The proceedings were taken by the defendant for his own benefit, and without any authority, express or implied, from the plaintiffs; and the fact that the result was also a benefit to the plaintiffs does not create any implied contract or give the defendant any equity to be paid a share of the costs by the plaintiffs."
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 59 - Full Document

Siva Panda vs Jujusti Panda on 13 December, 1901

It is interesting, however, to contrast this case with the case of Siva Panda v. Jujusti Panda (1901) I.L.R. 25 Mad. 599 which was quoted in argument in that case but is not referred to in the judgment. There a suit had been brought to recover a sum of money and costs Jointly against two defendants. Defendant No. 1 did not defend the suit and proceedings were taken against him ex parte. Defendant No. 2 defended the suit unsuccessfully, and a joint decree was passed against both, which was satisfied by defendant No. 2. He then brought this suit against his codefendant for contribution for half the amount paid by him, which included half of the costs. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that " the present defendant had no interest in that case. The foundation of the action thus fails" This was a Small Cause Court suit and an application in civil revision was taken to the High Court and came before Davies, J., who reversed the trial court and decreed the suit. On appeal under the Letters Patent, BENSON and Bhashyam Ayyangar, JJ., dismissed the appeal. They held that the production of the judgment and the decree in the former suit, and the certificate of satisfaction by the plaintiff alone, gave him a primâ facie case, but they went on to say, "it will of course be open to the party from whom contribution is sought, to plead and establish that, as between the joint-debtors the plaintiff is solely liable to the debt or that he is not equally liable with the plaintiff, or that both being joint tort-feasors in a sense in which on public grounds the right of contribution is negatived, the suit is not maintainable." Another case which has been strongly relied upon is the case of Punjab v. petum Singh (1874) 6 N.W.P. H.C.R. 192. That ease, however, and the cases which have followed it, can be left out of consideration, as they have no application whatsoever to the present case. There, several persons were jointly liable to pay a sum of money. The creditor successfully sued one of them for the whole amount and recovered it with costs. This perspn then brought a suit for contribution against the other persons who were jointly liable with him to pay the debt, to contribute their share both of the original debt and of the coats which were incurred in defending the creditor's suit. This Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover a proportionate share of the debt, bat was not entitled to recover any of the costs. It was there said:-- "When a. joint debt is incurred, it is in contemplation of the parties that it will be paid without suit. Although every one of the persons who may be under the joint liability must be presumed to engage to contribute his fair share to its satisfaction, they are not to be presumed to engage to pay their shares of the costs of litigation to which they may not be parties, and over which, whether it be more or less protracted, they may have no control. If persons, who are under a joint liability, are jointly sued and a decree passes for the debt and costs against both of them, each being under a joint liability in virtue of a decree, is bound to contribute, in respect both of debt and costs, his share of the decree. Where only one of several co-contractors is sued, he cannot call upon his co-contractors to contribute to the costs of the suit." This extract from the judgment is enough to show that it has no application here.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Ram Sarup And Ors. vs Baij Nath on 16 June, 1920

18. After I had prepared this judgment and taken considerable time and trouble in examining authorities I stumbled upon the case of Ram Sarup v. Baij Nath (1920) I.L.R. 43 All. 77. That case is exactly in point, and if it bad been referred to in argument, or if I had been fortunate enough to discover it earlier, it would have been unnecessary to do more than dismiss the appeal, relying on that decision. However, it is satisfactory to find that I have independently arrived at the same conclusion as my brothers, GOKUL PRASAD and S.M. Sulaiman.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Kishna Ram vs Rakmini Sewak Singh And Ors. on 5 January, 1887

15. I now come to the cases on the other side, the first of which is a case decided by a Bench of this Court, Kishna Ram v. Rakmini Sewak Singh (1887) I.L.R. 9 All. 222. There the plaintiff, along with other persons, caused certain property to be aftached and put up for sale. Subsequently this attachment was set aside with costs, and the plaintiff had to pay the whole of the costs He sued for contribution. The two lower courts dismissed his suit on the ground that " as the attachment was a trespass, he could not obtain contribution." I take this to mean that the courts held that the parties were joint tort-feasors.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1