Back
MacIntyre J:
In this case, Mr. Davidson on behalf of defendants Nos one, two and three, and Mr. Sharma on behalf of defendant No four, have taken the point that this suit is not maintainable and is bad in law on the ground that it can only be brought by or in the name of the Attorney General or with the consent of the Attorney General. They rely on s. 9(3) of the Government Proceedings Ordinance No. 58 of 1956 in support of their argument.
Mr. Dharmananda for the plaintiffs did not seriously contest the point and suggested that in the event of my holding that the suit should have been brought by the Attorney General, I should give leave to the plaintiffs to substitute the Attorney General as was done in the case of Cheah Ewe Chong & Anor. v. Cheah Kee Ee & Ors. [1934] MLJ 212.
Section 9(1) of the Government Proceedings Ordinance, 1956 lays down the rule that where certain specified reliefs mentioned therein are sought by way of a suit in relation to any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust, or in regard to the administration of any trust for public, religious, social or charitable purposes, the Attorney General or two or more persons with the wri
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
