Found 0 result
Showing 1160041- 1160050 of 0 result for ""
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…
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…