Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: kolkata Year: 1886 Page 1 of about 1 results (0.008 seconds)

Sep 08 1886 (PC)

Doya NahaIn Tewary Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-08-1886

Reported in : (1887)ILR14Cal256

..... council.16. it has been said that supposing the business of governing the country is not business within the meaning of section 12 of the letters patent, still the government in this country carries on various trades, such as the trades in opium and salt, and the principal places of business of ..... on business within the jurisdiction of the county courts in which these offices are situate. 'that the word' business' in section 12 of the latters patent was used in a restricted sense is also indicated by the words 'personally work for gain' to be found in the same section. the latter words ..... hat the breach of the contract took place in calcutta.11. therefore, under the first head of jurisdiction laid down in section 12 of the letters patent, the present suit is not cognizable by this court.12. neither is it cognizable under the second head of jurisdiction. in discussing this question it ..... by limitation.8. the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this court, regarding suits for recovery of money, is thus defined in section 12 of the letters patent: 'that the said high court of judicature at fort william in bengal, in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall be empowered to ..... the 19th of april 1884, on the original side of this court, without previous leave being obtained under the provisions of section 12 of the letters patent. it is stated in the plaint that the cause of action accrued in the month of january, 1884, when the authorities in charge of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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