Skip to content


John Innes Marshall Vs. Grandhi Venkata Ratnam - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in30Ind.Cas.4
AppellantJohn Innes Marshall
RespondentGrandhi Venkata Ratnam
Excerpt:
contempt of court by committing breach of injunction - injunction on firm--assistant, liability of, under what conditions. - .....of the presidency jail for having committed a breach of the injunction granted by mr. justice greaves on the 20th march 1915, restraining the defendant firm, their servants and agents from disposing, selling or dealing in any manner with the goods referred to in the plaint. that notice at motion is erroneous, for the injunction makes no mention of mr. marshall or of servants and agents. it necessarily follows from this that the procedure which had been adopted was misconceived. the proceeding against mr. marshal], if any, should have been for assisting in a contempt of court. but the case need not be disposed of on that ground, because on the merits it has not been made out that mr. marshall in any way assisted in a contempt of court. he did nothing. he did not dispose of,.....
Judgment:

Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.

1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Greaves, which has been treated before us as an order finding that there had been a contempt by the appellant Marshall which merited, if not imprisonment, at any rate the payment of the costs of the motion. The notice of motion called upon J.I. Marshal], an assistant of the defendant firm to take notice that on Monday, the 29th of March 1915, an application would be made on behalf of the plaintiff for an order that he, J.I. Marshall, do stand committed to the custody of the Superintendent of the Presidency Jail for having committed a breach of the injunction granted by Mr. Justice Greaves on the 20th March 1915, restraining the defendant firm, their servants and agents from disposing, selling or dealing in any manner with the goods referred to in the plaint. That notice at motion is erroneous, for the injunction makes no mention of Mr. Marshall or of servants and agents. It necessarily follows from this that the procedure which had been adopted was misconceived. The proceeding against Mr. Marshal], if any, should have been for assisting in a contempt of Court. But the case need not be disposed of on that ground, because on the merits it has not been made out that Mr. Marshall in any way assisted in a contempt of Court. He did nothing. He did not dispose of, sell or deal with the goods nor did he in any way assist in disposing, selling or dealing with them after service Oil him of the injunction. All that he did was done prior to the injunction. It has been suggested before us that he is in some way responsible for the delivery which is said to have taken place after the injunction. But on the facts it appears, that the delivery was prior to the injunction. There was no contempt participation in contempt on Mr. Marshall's part. In my opinion the order of the learned Judge is erroneous and must be set aside and the motion dismissed with costs of the hearing before Mr. Justice Greaves and before us.

Woodroffe, J.

2. I agree.

Mookerjee, J.

3. I agree.


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