9911796707
TMI Blog1912 (12) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interference with the plaintiffs property. The only point which their Lordships have to decide is whether Section 41 (b) of the Act IV of 1898 (Burma), was validly enacted. A majority of the Judges of the Chief Court of Lower Burma have held that it was not, and the Secretary of State appeals against the judgment. T The section enacts that no Civil Court is to have jurisdiction B to determine a claim to any right over land as against the Government. In the Court below it was held that this enactment was ultra vires as contravening a provision in Section 65 of r the Government of India Act, 1858, that there is to be the same remedy for the subject against the Government as there would have been against the East India Company. 2. Their Lords ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsons and bodies politic shall and may have and take the same suits remedies and proceedings, legal and equitable, against the Secretary of State in Council of India as they could have done against the said Company." Section 66 is a transitory provision making the Secretary of State in Council come in place of the Company in all proceedings pending at the commencement of the Act, without the necessity of a change of name. Section 67 is also a transitory provision making engagements of the Company entered into before the commencement of the Act binding on the Crown and enforceable against the Secretary of State in Council in the same manner and in the same Courts as they would have been in the case of the Company had the Act not passed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fundamental principle that the Secretary of State, even as representing the Crown, is to be in no position different from that of the old East India Company. But the question before their Lordships is not one of procedure. It is whether the Government of India can by legislation take away the right to proceed against it in a Civil Court in a case involving a right over land. Their Lordships have come to the clear conclusion that the language of Section 65 of the Act of 1858 renders such legislation ultra-vires. 6. It was suggested in the course of the argument for the appellant that a different view must have been taken by this Board in the case of Vasudev Sadashiv Modak. The Collector Ratnagiri. The answer is that no such point was ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
