SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1921 Supreme(All) 234

LINDSAY, TUDBALL
Lalman alias Laloo – Appellant
Versus
Gopi Nath – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal. The plaintiffs are the owners of a firm which carries on business at Banda. Their claim was against a firm which carried on a business at Calcutta at the time the suit was filed in the Court of first instance. It appears that the Calcutta firm had come into the hands of a Receiver, under an order of the Calcutta High Court, and, consequently, the Receiver was impleaded in the Court of first instance as the sole defendant. The Subordinate Judge of Banda dismissed the claim. He was of opinion that it was necessary for the plaintiffs' firm, before bringing a suit, to obtain the permission of the High Court at Calcutta to sue the Receiver. He held that such permission was a condition precedent to the maintainability of a suit, relying upon a judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported as Pramatha Nath v. Khetra Nath 32 C. 270 : 9 C.W.N. 247. Another issue was raised with which we are not eonoerned.

2. The plaintiffs then went in appeal to the District Judge of cawnpore and, according to the memorandum of appeal, the sole respondent who was impleaded before the lower Appellate Court was the Receiver. Subsequently, it same to be known that this Re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top