![handle is hein.journals/lwreviw2 and id is 1 raw text is: THE
~X V iw
Nos. 1-4.] JANY.-APRIL, z88z. [VOL. 11.
Art. I.-A CONFLICT.
The concurrent and unceasing delivery
of numerous unconsidered judgments by
many Judges, all entitled to equal respect,
tends in some degree to confusion, to diver-
sity of decision on the worse points, and
consequently to a diminution of the pres-
tige and. arthority of the Court. The
judgments of the High Court, to be useful
in the degree expected of them, must, it
seems to me, be comparatively few, thorough-
ly well considered, pronounced by a suffi-
cient number of voices, after sufficient
argument. At present, excepting what are
called Full Bench cases, hardly any of our
cases answer this description. The Court
is a kind of mill into which thousands of
cases are cast and a considerable pressure
being applied to the turning of many wheels,
the cases come out ground certainly, but
without that sifting which is required for
discrimination of the different grains.
So wrote Mr. Justice Louis S. Jackson
ten years ago and the complaint is as true
now as it was then. An instance in point
is the conflict of rulings at present existing
upon a very important of law,whichwe barely
noticed in the Law Review for December
(Reports p. 236). In the case of Luchman
Lat vs. Ram Lal (1 Law Review p. 236)
Mitter and Maclean J J. decided the point
in a particular way. The same point was
decided in exactly the opposite way by
McDonnell and Field J J. in a later case,
Prosad Dass Mullick and others vs. Kedar
Nath Mullick and others (1 Law Review p.
245). The point is this : Has any Court
inferior to the Court of the District Judge
jurisdiction to entertain a suit, brought by
one partner against his copartners after dis-
solution of the partnership, for an account
and for recovery of his share of the profits ?
Mitter and Maclean J J. held that the
plaintiff had the option of instituting pro-
ceedings in the District Judge's Court or
of bringing a regular suit in the Court
which has jurisdiction, having regard to
the pecuniary value of the suit. McDon-
nell and Field J J. held that the plaintiff
must not seek relief in any Court inferior
to the Court of the District Judge. The
statutory provision which has been the sub-
ject of argument in these cases is section
265 of the Indian Contract Act, which is as
follows :-
In the absende of any contract to the
contrary, after the termination of a partner-
ship, each partner or his representatives
may apply to the Court to wind up the
business of the firm, to provide for the
payment of its debts and to distribute the
surplus according to the shares of the
partners respectively.
Explanation. The Court in this section
means a Court not inferior to the Court of
a District Judge within the local limits of](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/lwreviw2&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most