cover image: The Calcutta Weekly Notes  March 19  1951

Premium

20.500.12592/kx9nhk

The Calcutta Weekly Notes March 19 1951

1951

The judges construed literally the provisions of the Constitution whose general trend was the protection of the individual and the group. [...] The trial Judge held that the Responents knowing that the Appellant had only one useful eye were in the circumstances under a duty to him to provide and require the use of goggles and that the Respondents had failed in their duty. [...] It was held that the judgment of the trial Judge was essentially a finding in the circumstances that the supply of goggles was obviously necessary when a one-eyed man was put to the kind of work the Apellant was put. [...] While a kind-hearted Judge in this country might be inclined towards the majority view the unfortunate one-eyed condition of a workman may not appeal to a Judge who may find that the judgment of the majority "rests on an unreal or isufficient distinction between the gravity of the risk run by a one-eyed man and the gravity of the risk run by a two-eyed man." Lord Normand recognised that the a [...] The Appellant was called upon to adduct evidence to show that the control and management of the affairs of the family was situated wholly outside the taable territories but he did not produce the file of correspondence and other material evidence which might have shown that nomally and as a matter of course the affairs in India were being controlled froth Colombo.
law
Pages
4
Published in
India
SARF Document ID
sarf.100104
Segment Pages Author Actions
The Calcutta Weekly Notes March 19 1951
lxv-lxviii unknown view

Related Topics

All