Skip to content


Secy. of State Vs. Saminatha Nadar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930Mad342a
AppellantSecy. of State
RespondentSaminatha Nadar
Cases ReferredIrwin v. D.J. Reid A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- jackson, j.1. the question for decision is whether certain documents items 1 and 7, are open to the lower court's inspection. the point is concluded by irwin v. d.j. reid a.i.r. 1921 cal 282 which follows the english law, see halsbury's laws of england, vol. 11, pp. 84 and 137.2. the public officer concerned and not the judge is to decide whether the evidence referred to shall be given or withheld. if the objection is taken by the proper person, the court will not go behind it.3. the order directing the open production of the documents is cancelled. the petition is allowed with costs.
Judgment:

Jackson, J.

1. The question for decision is whether certain documents items 1 and 7, are open to the lower Court's inspection. The point is concluded by Irwin v. D.J. Reid A.I.R. 1921 Cal 282 which follows the English Law, see Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 11, pp. 84 and 137.

2. The public officer concerned and not the Judge is to decide whether the evidence referred to shall be given or withheld. If the objection is taken by the proper person, the Court will not go behind it.

3. The order directing the open production of the documents is cancelled. The petition is allowed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //