Found 0 result
Showing 1157561- 1157570 of 0 result for ""
Mitter, J.@mdash(after stating the facts down to the decision of the Privy Council, continued),-Hurro Kinkurry Dabia, on the 4th January 1880, conveyed away to the respondent her right, title, and interest in the subjec…
Richard Garth, C.J.@mdashThe plaintiffs in this case claim an exclusive right of ferry across the river Nun, from their own ghat in Mouza Buch on the eastern side of the river, to the ghat of the defendant in Mouza Kist…
Richard Garth, C.J.@mdashIt is clear from these letters, that the construction which the plaintiff put upon the contract, and which has been adopted by the Court below, was that, although the whole of November was the p…
Mitter, J.@mdashWe do not think that the trial and acquittal were illegal. As for the order for compensation, Section 209 seems to contemplate a dismissal of the complaint rather than an acquittal of the accused; but re…
Prinsep, J.@mdashOn a complaint made before the Presidency Magistrate u/s 22 of the Telegraph Act, a summons was issued on the 4th September last, fixing the 15th for the trial. The complainant and two witnesses (the Te…
Mitter, J.@mdashWe are of opinion that the conviction in this case must be set aside. The lower Court is of opinion that the prisoner is guilty, under Sections 447 of the Indian Penal Code, of criminal trespass. In orde…
Prinsep, J.@mdashThe three appellants before us, as well as two others, have been convicted and sentenced u/s 58 of the Beng. Excise Act (Beng. Act VII of 1878), and in addition to the penalty prescribed thereby, they h…
Mc Donell, J.@mdashThe objections which are put forward in this second appeal on behalf of Radhanath Kundu are two- 1st.---That the Bank has already failed in a suit on another mortgage relating to the same property, a…
Bronghton, J.@mdashThe question in this case arises on the construction of Section 58 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869, which enacts as follows: No process of execution of any description whatsoever shall be issued on a judgm…
Richard Garth, C.J.@mdashI think that this case ought to go back to the Court below for retrial. 2. It seems to me that the lower Appellate Court has thrown the burden of proof upon the wrong party. 3. The suit is bro…