Ramanathan Chetty V. Meera Saibo Marikar

1930

[IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL.]

Present: Lord Atkin, Lord Russell of Killowen, and Lord Macmillan.

RAMANATHAN CHETTY v. MEERA SAIBO MARIKAR.

Wrongful seizure of goods-Writ authorizing seizure of goods of a firm-Attachment of plaintiff's goods-Proof of malice.

Where the defendant caused the Fiscal to seize the goods of the plaintiff under a writ, which directed the Fiscal to seize the goods of a certain firm, the plaintiff can recover damages without proof of malice.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme Court.

November 18, 1930. Delivered by LORD RUSSELL of Killowen-

This is an appeal from a decree of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon reversing a decree of the District Court of Colombo. The relevant facts can be briefly stated. The parties to the action were both of them creditors of Nana Moona Mohamado Rawther & Co., who carried on business as tea merchants at Nos. 35 and 65, Second Cross street, Colombo, and who may be conveniently referred to as " the firm ". On June 18, 1925, the firm filed their petition in insolvency.

The respondent, who carried on business at No. 69, Second Cross street, and had heard of the insolvency, observed that tea was, on June 21, 1925, being removed from the firm's premises at 65, Second Cross street.

The tea was on that day being removed in pursuance of an agreement which had been come to between the firm and the appellant on June 16, 1925, whereby tea and other goods were invoiced by the firm to the appellant at a sum of Rs. 21,700, the appellant being debited with that amount in account.

In fact, large quantities of tea had already, in pursuance of this arrangement, been removed on June 16 and 17 from the firm's premises to the appellant's premises, No. 102, Sea street.

The respondent and certain other creditors of the firm became, not unnaturally, suspicious, and on June 21, 1925, they entered into an agreement to take the necessary Court proceedings, by appointing one of themselves as " leading person". The respondent appears to have been selected for this purpose.

Before referring to the Court proceedings which were taken by the respondent, it is convenient to state at once, that by a judgment delivered in the District Court of Colombo on September 14, 1925, it was decided (and the matter is resjudicata between the parties to this appeal) that the tea in question was sold by the firm to the appellant on June 16, 1925, and was the property of the appellant.
On June 22, 1925, the respondent presented a petition to the District Court of Colombo asking (amongst other relief) that the Fiscal might be ordered to seize the goods specified in the petition at the respective places therein specified. The petition specified the goods and places in the following words :-

" The insolvents have, after their insolvency, removed the following goods and deposited them in the several places set out hereinafter. Tea of the approximate value of Rs. 5,000 has been removed by the insolvents to No. 42, Prince street, Colombo, the store of K. M. S. Sego Mohamado, Nana Rawanna Mana Nana Suppiah has from June 19 to 21 removed tea of the value of about Rs. 30,000 to his store at Sea street, Colombo, flour, sugar and Maldive fish were removed to Gampola on June 18, and I understand that M. S. H. Abdul Ally was handed over 29 bags of flour, tea, and Maldive fish.'

An affidavit sworn by the respondent support of the petition contained an

allegation in identical words. The reference to Nana Rawanna Mana Nana Suppiah is a reference to the appellant's agent, Supramanian, who had removed the tea to 102, Sea street.

As a result of his application, the respondent obtained the issue of a search warrant to the Fiscal on June 22, 1925. The warrant, after reciting that there was reason to suspect and believe that property of the firm was concealed " at Nos. 65 and 35, Second Cross street, No. 42, Prince street, Skinners

Click Here to Read the rest of this document