

Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
• This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff against the trial court's ruling dismissing the plaintiff's lawsuit. For the previous 14 years, the plaintiff had been producing rice and oil under the brand name "R. N. Bishnachandra." Purulia received a shipment of pure mustard oil from the plaintiff in a cylindrical van.
Typology: Summaries
1 / 3
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
CITATION: AIR 1926 Pat. 258, 12 Bom. 490 COURT : Patna High Court BENCH : Hon’ble Justice Fazl Ali and Hon’ble Justice Verma PARTIES PETITIONER : Ramchandraram Nagaram Rice & Oil Mills Ltd. RESPONDENT: Municipal Commissioners of Purulia Municipality DECIDED ON: 26 th March, 1943 FACTS This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff against the trial court's ruling dismissing the plaintiff's lawsuit. For the previous 14 years, the plaintiff had been producing rice and oil under the brand name "R. N. Bishnachandra." Purulia received a shipment of pure mustard oil from the plaintiff in a cylindrical van. Approximately one thousand canisters of oil were filled and delivered to customers in accordance with the agreement on May 3, 1938. Following the delivery of the 100 tins to the defendant on May 4, 1938, he filed a case under Section 287 of the Municipal Act, claiming the oil was tainted with kerosene and smelled bad. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's accusations were baseless and untrue, and that the oil was pure and intended for ingestion by humans. After the oil samples were examined by a chemical analyst, the sanitary inspector determined that the oil was authentic. The plaintiff claimed that he suffered significant losses as a result of the defendant's actions.
The defendant contended that the plaintiff had not incurred any losses and that the plaintiff had no right to sue him for damages simply because the chemical analyst had not discovered any impurities in the oil. ISSUES