Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
W. Comer Petheram, J., Ghose, J.
Mohima Chunder Biswas - Appellant
Versus
Tarini Sunker Ghose - Respondent
Decided On : 22-03-1892
Jurisdiction - Guardians and Wards Act - Sections 47, 8 - The court held that no appeal lies to the High Court against an order of the District Judge refusing to dismiss a guardian appointed under the repealed Act XL of 1858, as the Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) does not provide for such an appeal under Section 47.
Fact of the Case:
This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Faridpur refusing to dismiss a guardian who had been appointed under the repealed Act XL of 1858.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined Section 47 and other portions of the Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) but failed to find any provision that allows an appeal to the High Court against the order of the District Judge refusing to dismiss the guardian.
Issues: Whether an appeal lies to the High Court against the order of the District Judge refusing to dismiss the guardian appointed under the repealed Act XL of 1858.
Ratio Decidendi: The Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) does not provide for an appeal to the High Court against the order of the District Judge refusing to dismiss a guardian.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed on the ground that no appeal lies to the High Court against the order of the District Judge, without any order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Ghose, J. - This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Faridpur refusing to dismiss a guardian. The guardian had been appointed under Act XL of 1858, which has since been repealed by the Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890); and the first question that we have to determine is whether an appeal lies to this Court against the order of the District Judge. Section 47 of Act VIII of 1890 gives an appeal in certain cases; and what we have to see is, whether the order complained against falls within any of the cases mentioned in that section.
2. We have examined Section 47 and the other portions of the Act; but we have failed to discover that the Legislature has provided for an appeal to this Court from an order of the kind with which we are now concerned.
3. We may here mention that the question, as to whether an appeal lies to this Court from the order complained of, was very candidly brought to our notice by the learned vakil, who appeared for the appellant, at the outset of his address; and we have come to the conclusion that no appeal lies.
4. The result is that this appeal will be dismissed upon that ground only, but without costs, as the respondent has not appeared.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
