Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges

    Narendra Nath Barari v. Abhoy Churn Chattopadhya

    Maclean, C.J:— I think the question referred to us ought to be answered in the negative. I see the point was practically decided in the way I have said, by Mr. Justice Geidt and myself in a Letters Patent appeal (No. 39 of 1905) in which we affirmed the decision of Mr. Justice Mookerjee. The practice we then affirmed seems to be in accord with that of the Courts of England, and I see no objection to it.

    The appeal must therefore be allowed and the case sent back to the Subordinate Judge to be tried out on the merits.

    The Appellant must have his costs of this Court, both here and before Mr. Justice Geidt.

    Ghose, J.— I agree.

    Geidt, J.— I also agree.

    Mookerjee, J.— I also agree.

    Holmwood, J.— I also agree.

    Appeal allowed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Narendra Nath Barari v. Abhoy Churn Chattopadhya
    (Aug 27, 1906)