Found 0 result
Showing 1158181- 1158190 of 0 result for ""
Jackson, J.@mdashIt appears to us that the decision of the Court below on the issue of limitation is erroneous. It appears that in July 1865 a suit was brought by a person, who was then talookdar, against the defendants…
Prinsep, J.@mdashThese cases have been submitted to us by the Sessions Judge of Midnapore, because sentences of fine have been imposed by the Magistrate of the Division of Contai for breaches of the stamp law contrary t…
Robert P. Collier, J. 1. The facts which give rise to the questions of law into which this case resolves itself, are as follows: Shumbhu Chunder Surmana, in 1819, granted a talook to his sister, Kasiswari Debya, by …
James W. Colvile, J. 1. This is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Calcutta, sitting as a Court of Appeal, which, on the 23rd of August, 1875, affirmed the judgment of Mr. Justice Phear, who, in the exerc…
R.P. Collier, J. 1. These are appeals and cross-appeals from judgments of the Recorder of Rangoon in two suits, in which Mirza Mahomed Ally, together with a Company called the Burmah Company, Limited, were plaintiffs.…
Montague E. Smith, J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of the North-West Provinces, which substantially affirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut. The suit was originally brought by th…
Robert P. Collier, J. 1. These are appeals and cross appeals from judgments of the Recorder of Rangoon in two suits, in which Mirza Mahomed Ally, together with a company called the Burmah Company, Limited, were Plaint…
Montague E. Smith, JJ. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of the North-west Provinces, which substantially affirmed a decree of the subordinate Judge of Meerut. 2. The suit was originally brought…
J.W. Colvile, J.@mdashThis is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Calcutta, sitting as a Court of Appeal, which, on the 23rd August 1875, affirmed the judgment of Mr. Justice Phear, who, in the exercise of t…
ORDER 1. It having been ruled by the Privy Council. (see Lachmee Buksh Roy v. Runjeet Roy Panday 13 BLR 177 that signature by an agent is not sufficient to satisfy the analogous terms of Act XIV of 1859, we must hold t…