Found 0 result
Showing 1159591- 1159600 of 0 result for ""
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashThe case is very clear. The Principal Sudder Ameen, in his first decision, held that. Regulation XVII of 1806 was promulgated in Sarun on 7th January 1807, and he dismissed the plainti…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashIt is said that s. 28 does not extend to the mofussil Court; and that it applies only to the High Court on its Original Side, inasmuch as the Act was intended to apply only to Her Maje…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashIt has been held in several cases that a deed of sale registered did not invalidate a prior unregistered mortgage under the provisions of Act XIX of 1843. There was a case of Dooleycha…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashThe case of Ruttunmani Dasi v. Kalikissen Chuckerbutty W.R., Sp. No., p. 147 decided on 16th March 1864 does not govern this case. In that case no fraud or other misconduct of the part…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J. and Bayley, J.@mdashIt appears to me that this case is governed by the ruling in Kashinath Chatterjee v. Chandi Charan Banerjee See Kashi Nath Chatterjee v. Chandi Charan Banerjee, ante, p.…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J. and Bayley, J.@mdashI am of opinion that verbal evidence is not admissible to vary or alter the terms of a written contract in cases in which there is no fraud or mistake, and in which the …
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashThis case is governed by our decision in the case of Nilmani Burnick v. Puddo Lochan Chuckerbutty See Nilmani Burnick v. Puddo Lochan Chuckerbutty, ante, p. 379. The tenure was sold un…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J., Bayley, Pundit and Macpherson, JJ.@mdashThe question in this case depends upon the proper construction of the proviso to s. 77 Act X of 1859. The words are:-- "Provided always that the dec…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashThe question which has been submitted for the opinion of a Full Bench is whether an application for the review of an order rejecting a previous application for review can be entertaine…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashIt is admitted that the review was applied for on the 6th February 1865, and that the appeal was not filed until the 18th February 1865. The question therefore referred to the Full Ben…