The Calcutta Weekly Notes Monday May 1 1944

NOTES OF CASEAS liv The Maharani of Nabha’s case We regret that for reasons of space it has not been possible to include the whole of the Federal Court’s judgment on the Maharani of Nabha’s case in the present issue. [...] The head-note represents the majority of the Court as holding that the protection of sec. [...] 270 (1) of the Constitution Act extends to cases of mistake an the pait of the officer concerned as to his duty and as also saying at the same time that it is unnecessary to decide the question. [...] It is not possible to say that the reservation made is in respect of mistake of law only for that interpretation of the judgment is not warranted by the language used and the dissenting Judge Zafruila Khan J. understands the majority as atually holding that provided the officer cocerned acted honestly the protection would cover mistakes of both law and fact. [...] We use the neutral epression “ person concerned ” because the other part of the controversy was as to whether the instructions related to the Maharaja or the Maharani.