Found 0 result
Showing 1157921- 1157930 of 0 result for ""
Wilson, J.@mdashMr. Woodroffe has raised two objections, in respect of which he, contends that the Advocate-General has not produced sufficient evidence to allow the Court to proceed with this investigation. One of thes…
Robert Stuart, C.J.@mdashThe Munsif was clearly right in holding that the registered sale-deed, although subsequent in date, had preference over the unregistered bond, and the Subordinate Judge was clearly wrong in deci…
Morris, J.@mdashWe think that the Judge has not correctly stated the law on the point of pre-emption that is here raised, and has somewhat misunderstood the ruling which he has quoted in the case of Chamroo Pasban v. Pu…
Wilson, J.@mdashIn this case, the Advocate-General, on behalf of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, applied to the Court, in its Admiralty Jurisdiction, u/s 5 of Act IV of 1875, to investigate charges of misconduct or i…
McDonell, J.@mdashThe Officiating Additional Judge of the 24-Parganas, differing from the jury, has referred this case to the High Court u/s 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (His Lordship stated the facts of the c…
B. Peacock, J. 1. The principal question to be determined in this appeal is, whether or not the respondent Doorga Churn Chatterjee had any right, title, or interest in a certain taluk called Lot Panchgatchia, in Zilla…
Barnes Peacock, J. 1. The principal question to be determined in this appeal is, whether or not the Respondent, Doorga Churn Chatterjee had any right, title, or interest in a certain talook called Lot Panchgatchia, in…
Spankie, J.@mdashThe property in suit was recorded in the name of Kesri Singh, who fell into arrears in 1838 to the amount of Rs. 108. In 1839, Ratan Singh and Dirgpal Singh bought the rights and interests of Kesri Sing…
Romesh Chunder Mitter, J.@mdashWe do not see any reason for interference in this case. 2. The only point that we need notice is, that one of the bonds filed by the plaintiffs, viz., the bond for Rs. 599, not having bee…