Found 0 result
Showing 1158161- 1158170 of 0 result for ""
1. We agree with the District Munsif that Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act is applicable. The plaintiff may, however, recover reasonableremuneration for the work done by him for the benefit of the client on the…
1. So far as the claim for a declaration that the hypothecation bond is not binding, the action is barred.2. As regards the rest of the claim, the mortgage and sale relied upon executed by the plaintiff''s mother and gu…
1. We do not think this is a case for interference.2. In the first place the Magistrate, whose action is impugned, gives in our opinion good reasons for his order. But secondly we are disposed toagree with the view take…
1. If the plaintiffs have, in fact, suffered any damage from a neglect of a duty imposed by statute on the kamam, they are entitled to bring a suit torecover such damage.2. Section 11 of Regulation XXV of 1809 does not …
1. The Sessions Judge having examined five witnesses for the prosecution, and there being no further direct evidence of the offence, asked the jurywhether they wished to hear any more evidence, and on their stating that…
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.@mdashWe are unable to agree with the Sessions Judge in the views he has expressed. The offence, with which the accused was charged was one which fell u/s 341 or 342 of the Penal Code. It was a summ…
1. The appellant was convicted of having made to the police a false charge of dacoity against certain persons and was sentenced u/s 211, IndianPenal Code, to suffer four years'' rigorous imprisonment.2. In appeal it is …
Shephard, J.@mdashThe question is whether a person charged u/s 183 of the Indian Penal Code was rightly acquitted, on the ground that theprosecution failed to prove that the goods seized by the Amin and rescued by the a…
1. The order of the High Court, dated 28th January 1896, on which the appellant relies, was passed mainly on the ground that there had beenundue delay in making the application for transfer. Section 487, Criminal Proced…
1. On behalf of the respondent, it is objected that no second appeal lies in this case, inasmuch as the decision of the Subordinate Judge appealedagainst was not an adjudication, upon the right claimed or the defence se…