REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

NATIONAL SHIPPING CO. Appellant

V/S

HARIPADA SAHA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

DALLYEL V. TYVER [REFERRED TO]
MURRAY V. CURRIE [REFERRED TO]
DONOVAN V. LAING WHARTON AND DOWN CONSTRUCTION SYNDICATE LTD. [REFERRED TO]
ROURKE V. WHITE COLLIERY CO. [REFERRED TO]
JONES V. SOULLARD [REFERRED TO]
JONES V. CORPORATION OF LIVERPOOL [REFERRED TO]
DOWD V. BOASE AND CO.LTD. [REFERRED TO]
LEGGOTT AND SON V. NORMANTON AND SON [REFERRED TO]
WILLARD V. WHITELEY LTD. [REFERRED TO]
M'FALL V. ADAMS AND CO. [REFERRED TO]
M'CARTAN V. BELFAST HARBOUR COMMRS. [REFERRED TO]
CENTRUY INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. NORTHERN IRELAND ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD [REFERRED TO]
WALDOCK V. WINFIELD [REFERRED TO]
AINSLIE V. LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS COMMISSIONERS [REFERRED TO]
SHORT V. J.W.HENDERSON LTD. [REFERRED TO]
NICHOLAS V. F.J.SPARKES AND SON [REFERRED TO]
A.H.BULL AND CO. V WEST AFRICAN SHIPPING AGENCY AND LIGHTERAGE CO. [REFERRED TO]
VIDE CHOUDHARY V. GILLOT [REFERRED TO]
O'REILLY V. IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. [REFERRED TO]
GARRARD V. SOUTHEY AND CO. [REFERRED TO]
GIBB V. UNITED STEEL COMPANIES LTD. [REFERRED TO]
BAIN V. CENTRAL VERMONT RLY. CO. [REFERRED TO]
MERSY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD V. COGGINS AND GRIFFITH (LIVERPOOL) LTD. [REFERRED TO]
DHARANGADHRA CHEMICAL WORKS LIMITED VS. STATE OF SAURASHTRA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question, much debated in the English Courts and of lesser but by no means infrequent recurrence in this country, has come up for consideration in this appeal. It is important and difficult arid, on it, judicial opinion is widely divergent. The law on the point has been stated or sought to be stated at different times by eminent judges and jurists but the apparent clarity at one stage melted away and faded into indistinctness before later examination and the statement and re-statement of the law again involved the mind in confusion and obscurity. Tests have varied and what appeared to be true, conclusive and exhaustive at one stage was rejected as faulty, unconvincing and insufficient on later occasions. In the latest authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court here and of the House of Lords in England we have some certainty which may suffice for our present purpose but still the need that was felt in an earlier decision of the House of Lords of a restatement of the law on the point, at least in one of its branches, has not altogether disappeared and, even with regard to the other part, the position cannot be said to be absolutely clear in that, even though the test or tests may be said to be somewhat settled, immense difficulties are felt in the matter of their application.

(2.) The point is one concerning the relationship of master and servant and pertaining to that branch of the law which deals with the question as to who, A or B, would be liable for a tort, committed by A's servant, sent to B for doing a particular work in the latter's behalf, in the course of execution or performance of that work.

(3.) The point arises in the following way:

Click here to view full judgment.

NATIONAL SHIPPING CO Vs. HARIPADA SAHA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address