Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.03 seconds)
B.E.M. Rodricks vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 2 April, 1912 cites

Doya Nahain Tewary vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 8 September, 1886

9. Having regard to what I have said before, and with great respect to the learned Judges who decided the case of Doya Narain Tewary v. The Secretary of State for India in Council 14 C. 256, I venture to dissent from the views therein expressed, but as I hold that I am bound by the decision of a Bench so constituted, I must hold that this Court has no jurisdiction. The suit will accordingly be dismissed with costs, unless the defendant will consent to waive costs.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Bipro Doss Dey vs Secretary Of State For India In Council on 21 May, 1885

In so deciding, the learned Judges discussed the dicision of Mr. Justice Pigot in Bipro Doss Dey v. The Secretary of State for India in Council 14 C. 262n. Pigot, J., had taken a directly' opposite view. He held that such a suit was maintainable. He held farther that if the Secretary of State for India in Council in this country was a legal person in any sense, he could not possibly hold that he did not carry on business in Calcutta. So far as I am concerned, I am bound by the decision of the two learned Judges, Mitter and Trevelyan, JJ., who constituted the Bench to whom the matter was referred, but as I am not convinced in my mind that the decision is correct, I state my reasons. However differently the word business" may have been construed at different times, I do not think there is any question whatever that a carrier's business is business" within the meaning of Section 12 of the Letters Patent, nor is there any doubt that a Railway Company, or other Corporate Body, or even a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, is a "person" within the meaning of that section. See the definition of the word "person" in the General Clauses Act, 1897. It cannot also be doubted that a Railroad Company, apart from the fact of having ' a Registered Office, carries on business" at its principal office where the Directors meet and the general business of the Company is transacted.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

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

About the same time, the Madras Court, in the case of Subbaraya Mudali v. The Government 1 M.H.C.R. 286 took a different view, after which came the cases of Brito v. The Secretary of State for India 6 B. 251 in which the question of jurisdiction does not appear to have been raised Hari Bhanji v. The Secretary of State 4 M. 344 and Secretary of. State for India v. Hari Bhanji 5 M. 273.; Bundle v. The Secretary of State for India in Council (1862) 1 Hyde 37 was cited during argument but was not commented upon in the judgment.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

C.E. Grey, Official Trustee Of Bengal vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 1 January, 1800

He is, for purposes of suits, to be treated as a 'person," and represents the Government. The learned Advocate General referred me to Ilbert's Government of India (2nd edition), pages 176-177, which does help to decide the point. I notice that on page 146, the learned author says this: "the office of the Secretary of State is constitutionally a unit, though there are five officers." Reference was made by the learned Judges in Doya Narain Tewary's case 14 C. 256 to Kinloch v. The Secretary of State for India in Council (1880) 15 Ch. D. 1 at p. 8 : 49 L.J. Ch. 571 : 42 L.T. 667 : 28 W.R. 619, in which the plaintiff sued for an account and distribution of ' booty of war" come to the hands of the Secretary of State under a Royal Warrant. It was argued that the defendant thus became "trustee" and the "booty" was "trust fund." James, L.J., held it was not a trust, and that the Secretary of State for India in Council (the name by which the Government can be sued) was not a person capable of being trustee, because according to that learned Judge, the Government of India was not capable of being the trustee of such a fund. The property in that case had vested in the Crown, and was to be distributed by the servants of the Crown according to the Crown's directions, and that, therefore, no Municipal Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The observations made in the course of the judgment refer to the matter which was before the Court of appeal and cannot be considered of general application. To hold that where suits are actually maintainable against the Secretary of State for India in Council, he is a "mere name," 1 consider erroneous. He is a "Body Corporate" in such a suit according to the express words of the Statute. If, however, the Secretary of State for India in Council is a mere name", it is quite clear that a name can never be said to ' dwell" anywhere or carry on business." It is also clear that a mere name" can do nothing. The name cannot sue or be sued, nor can there ever be a cause of action against a mere name, but as I hold it is not, I shall consider whether the Secretary of State for India in Council, who is "legal person" in such suits, can be said to dwell in Calcutta, or carry on business there. It seems to me difficult to say that the Government does not dwell in its own capital, and that a Government engaged in trade, though it may be for purpose of the State, does not carry on business," if Sir George Jessel is right that where the Brain Power" is, there a trade or business is carried on. That the Brain Power of the Government of India is at its seat of Government, is not an unjustifiable assumption. I would have had, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the Secretary of State for India in Council, namely, the Government, dwells at its capital and carries on business there, and is thus amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court, in cases where a suit can be maintained against the Government.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1