Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: cess act 1880 section 95 · Page 1 of about 23 results (0.022 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

May 30 1911

Chalho Singh Vs. Jharo Singh

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-30-1911

Subject : Civil

Reported in : (1912)ILR39Cal995

the decision of the Judicial Committee is an authority for the proposition that Section 95 of the Bengal Cess Act, 1880 is not exhaustive and that a road-cess return may be admissible in evidence as against persons other than

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 15 1909

Mohan Pandey Vs. Lala Bhagwati Charan and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-15-1909

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : 1Ind.Cas.813

individual by whom or on whose behalf they were filed, being absolutely barred by Section 95 of the Cess Act, 1880 (Bengal Act IX of 1880), and (2) that, apart from the provisions of the section just quoted and

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 18 1926

Sheikh Intaz Alias Romar Bap and ors. Vs. Dina Nath De Sarkar and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-18-1926

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : AIR1926Cal856,96Ind.Cas.72

my opinion, there is no substance in this appeal which must be dismissed. Cess Act (IX B.C. of 1880), Section 95 - Return, admissibility of, at instance of third party. -

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

May 30 1911

Chalho Singh and ors. Vs. Jharo Singh and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-30-1911

Subject : Civil

Reported in : 18Ind.Cas.61

the decision of the Judicial Committee is an authority for the proposition that Section 95 of the Bengal Cess Act, 1880, is not exhaustive and that a road-cess return may be admissible in evidence as against persons other than

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 09 1912

Sewdeo NaraIn Singh Vs. Ajodhya Prosad Singh

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jan-09-1912

Subject : CivilTenancy

Reported in : (1912)ILR39Cal1005

plaintiffs by the defendants in another suit for declaration of title; secondly, because Section 95 of the Bengal Cess Act of 1880 does not present a bar to the admission of the road-cess return; and, thirdly, because the

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 03 1925

Ram Kumar Das Vs. HaranaraIn Das Alias Dinabandhi Das and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-03-1925

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : AIR1926Cal727,92Ind.Cas.104

appellant must, prevail. Exhibit 2 is a road cess return submitted by the plaintiffs. Section 95 of the Cess Act IX B.C. of 1880 provides that such a return shall not be admissible in favour of the person

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 29 1911

imrit Chamar Vs. Sridhar Panday and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-29-1911

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : 13Ind.Cas.120

been argued that the Road Cess Return is not admissible in evidence under Section 95 of the Bengal Cess Act, 1880. That section, however, has no application to the circumstances of the present case. The maker of the document

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 09 1912

Mohendra NaraIn Singh Vs. Ajodhya Prosad Singh

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jan-09-1912

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.284

plaintiffs by the defendants in another suit for declaration of title; secondly, because Section 95 of the Bengal Cess Act of 1880 does not present a bar to the admission of the Road Cess Return; and thirdly, because

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 08 1913

Narendra NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Gopi Sundari Dasya

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-08-1913

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : 25Ind.Cas.366

land revenue and in connection with that separate account, the Collector proceeded under Section 44 of the Bengal Cess Act ( IX of 1880) to apportion half the cesses to the plaintiffs' share and half the cesses to … is or is not correct, the burden is on him to prove that it is correct, because under Section 95 the general rule is that the return filed by him is only admissible in evidence against and is

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 24 1908

Mohamed Wasil Vs. Emperor

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-24-1908

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : 4Ind.Cas.578

Road-cess return which he submitted to the Collector under Section 14 of the Road Cess and Public Works Cess Act (IX, B.C. of 1880).2. Nobody appears to oppose this rule and after reading the explanation which has been … in the return was to support a civil suit. The Magistrate has, however, failed to realise that under Section 95 of the Act such a return is admissible in evidence against the person making it, but is not

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial