Found 0 result
Showing 1157511- 1157520 of 0 result for ""
Montague E. Smith, J. 1. This is a suit brought by the Appellant in the District Court of Surat, claiming, as the adopted son of Maharaval Jeysingji Bhagvansingi, to recover from the Government of Bombay certain payme…
Pontifex, J.@mdashWe think that the conviction in this case cannot be sustained. 2. The facts are as follows:---Behala, the appellant, with her infant, was sleeping in the same room with her husband. Her husband, on aw…
Richard Garth, C.J.@mdashWe think that the Court below was not justified in dismissing the plaintiff''s suit. 2. The Munsif was undoubtedly wrong in rejecting the claim, because one of the parties who had been made a p…
Pontifex, J.@mdashThis case, although exceedingly important to the subscribers to and pensioners upon the Uncovenanted Service Family Pension Fund, does not appear to us to be one of much difficulty. The Fund was establ…
Richard Garth, C.J.@mdashWe think that the District Judge has taken an erroneous view of this case. [His Lordship then stated the facts as above and continued.] 2. Both parties complain of this decision, the plaintiffs…
Pontifex, J.@mdashI think this rule must be made absolute and the order of the Deputy Magistrate must be set aside. In giving my reasons for this decision, it is necessary to advert shortly to some circumstances which p…
Robert P. Collier, J. 1. This was an administration suit for the purpose of carrying into effect the trusts of the will of one Behari Lall Mookerjee, instituted by the Secretary of State for India, in which Komoleh Ka…
Morris, J.@mdashThe only point at issue in this case is, whether the etmami tenure of the defendants existed at the time of the Permanent Settlement. The lower Appellate Court, reversing the decision of the first Court,…
Cunningham, J.@mdashWe think that the Magistrate was not at liberty to refuse to summon the witnesses tendered by the accused, except on the grounds specified in Section. 359 If the Magistrate think that any witness is …
Wilson, J.@mdashThe main question in this case is a pure question of law,---namely, whether, by the law in force in Calcutta, the widow of an Armenian, married before the Dower Act (XXIX of 1839), is entitled to dower o…