Found 0 result
Showing 1159171- 1159180 of 0 result for ""
L.S. Jackson, J.@mdashThis was a suit brought by a Coal Company, called the Pyari Lal Coal Company, against the defendant, Mr. Rooke, whois the owner of another coal concern, in which it was set forth that the defendant…
L.S. Jackson, J.@mdashI am now of opinion that the decision of the lower appellate Court, in so far as it discharges the defendant Kasinath Roy from liability in this suit, cannot be supported. Section 337 of the CPC is…
Barnes Peacock, C.J.@mdashAn advertisement publislied in a newspaper for a demonstration against a Judge for acts done in Court may be a contempt of Court as well as defamation, although it cannot be said that in every …
Norman, J.@mdashIt appears to me that there is ground for saying in this case that no award whatever was made by Mr. Sandys and Moulvi Wahidudin, inasmuch as after the Judge had referred back the award to them, u/s 323 …
Bayley, J.@mdashThis was a suit for a kabuliat at enhanced rate. The defendant pleaded his occupancy as talookdar at a fixed rate of rent. The first Court gave the plaintiff a decree for a kabuliat at rupees 2, the amou…
Mitter, J.@mdashIn his judgment in this case, made the following observations:--We further find that the Judge has committed another mistake in determining whether the defendant was entitled to the benefit of the presum…
Bayley, J.@mdashThis was a suit brought for the declaration of the plaintiff''s title, and for the cancellation of a summary order passed in execution of a decree in 1866. The plaintiff alleged that the lands in dispute…
Norman, J.@mdashOn the 24th of October 1868, the Sub-Inspector of Bhabooah submitted a report to the Deputy Magistrate of that place, Baboo Jadu Nath Bose, stating that Chowdhry Bhyro Dayal Sing and others, proprietors …
L.S. Jackson, J.@mdashThe first and principal ground of appeal which the learned counsel has relied upon in this case, is the refusal of the Court of first instance to summon the witnesses who were named by the plaintif…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashIt appears to me to be clear that the presentment of the petition under Act XVI of 1864 must be considered as having been done under Act XX of 1866, by virtue of section 3 of that Act.…