Found 0 result
Showing 1159091- 1159100 of 0 result for ""
Glover, J.@mdashThis was a suit to recover a sum of rupees 713, arrears of rent for the year 1275. The defence was that all the rent had been paid, except rupees 84-12. The first Court gave plaintiff a modified decree f…
Phear, J.@mdashI made the order in this case for the assessment of the probable amount of the wife''s costs and payment of the amount into Court, and directed that the wife''s proctor should have a lien for his costs on…
Glover, J.@mdashIn this matter I am compelled to differ with my brother Kemp, and with the learned Judges of other Division Benches. I need not say therefore that my opinion is come to with much diffidence. It appears t…
Phear, J.@mdashIt is not enough to say that there was no fraudulent intention. That is no reason why an injunction should not be granted. I do not think I have any option if the marks, which defendants have used, are th…
Norman, J.@mdashThe prisoner has been convicted of dacoity by the verdict of a Jury and sentenced to transportation for life. There appears to have been a very serious irregularity in the mode of conducting the trial. T…
Norman, J.@mdashThe prisoners have been convicted by the Judge of Purnea concurring with the Assessors, of the offences of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, of three persons, Jatru, Menghan and Jikri, and of ca…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashWe are of opinion that the defendant in the original suit having died before the filing of the plaint against him, the Court had no jurisdiction to decide upon the case. Under these ci…
Hobhouse, J.@mdashThis was a suit for possession of lands, the plaintiff''s allegation being that the defendant held those lands on a lease which expired in the year 1227 (1820), and that after the expiry of that lease …
Loch, J.@mdashI think that we cannot interfere with the judgment of the Court below, though our decision is based on grounds different from those assigned by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff in this case is the …
1. Kalisankar Sandyal was convicted u/s 224 of the Indian Penal Code of escaping from lawful custody, and u/s 353 of using criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duty. The other prisoners were con…