Found 0 result
Showing 1159791- 1159800 of 0 result for ""
1. The first contention on behalf of the appellants is that Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners'' Act is inapplicable to this case in that Grurumanna Heggade by whom the original pro-note was executed was not the part…
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.@mdashIn this case we think that the view taken by the Judicial Commissioner in the judgment given by him in the Special Court is right on both points. The first point which has been referred…
1. It appears to us that the question whether there is any conflict between Sithamma v. Narayana, I. L. R 12 M 487, and the cases, Patcha v.Mohidin, and Kasmi v. Ayish, amma, reported in I. L. R 15 M 57, does not really…
1. This is a Civil Revision Petition put in on behalf of the Secretary of State in Council u/s 622 of the CPC against the decision of the District Judgeof Tanjore and the assessors in Compensation Case No. 4 of 1890.2. …
1. The 1st respondent was the concubine of one Chinna Venkata Gopalam Garu, who died on the 14th September 1888, leaving him surviving aminor son named Rajamannar. The deceased left a will and a codicil on the 27th Apri…
Pigot, J.@mdashThis case arises either u/s 195 or u/s 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If u/s 195, and for myself I do not think it possible that a general sanction issued forth of his own motion by the magistrate ir…
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.@mdashThe only question in this appeal is whether the appellant''s application of the 7th March 1887 had the effect of keeping the decree alive. Both Courts have held that it had not, and, we…
1. The properties in question originally belonged to one Taruvai and they were given after his death to his wife Ayishamma and her children inaccordance with his orally expressed wish. The question referred to us is whe…
1. As the persons are unconnected and have no common interest in joint property, we are of opinion that separate powers of attorney must beexecuted. In Ref. Case No. 21 of 1891, (The judgment of the Full Bench in Ref. C…
1. We are of opinion that the view of the Board of Revenue is correct and that refund may be given u/s 51(d)(6) of the Stamp Act.