Found 0 result
Showing 1159741- 1159750 of 0 result for ""
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…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashThis is a very clear case. The plaintiff sues to set aside an execution and a sale under it. He was a purchaser of a decree from the defendant, Sitaram. It appears that Sitaram had obt…
Trevor, J.@mdashBefore proceeding to answer these questions, it will be well to notice certain objections which have been taken to the form of the present action. An action for enhancement of rent, it has been contended…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashWe are of opinion that the Court of Wards was not prevented by Act XL of 1858 from taking an infant and his estate under their protection by reason of a certificate of administration g…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashWe think that the Judge of the Small Cause Court was right in this case; and we agree in opinion with the learned Judges who referred the question to a Full Bench. The case (1), which …
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashWe agree with E. Jackson, J., in this case. We think that there was no error in law, and that the Judge was not bound to grant a local investigation. The decree of the lower Court is a…
Norman, J.@mdashThis case having been re-argued before a Full Bench at the request of the respondent, and in pursuance of the permission given to that effect, I think that limitation will not apply to the claim of the p…
Trevor, J.@mdashThe plaintiff in this case was a sub-talookdar who held his tenure by virtue of a contract with his superior holder, the lakhirajdar. At the time at which that contract was entered into, which on the sta…