Air 1925 Cal 6 - Judgment Search Results
Radha Krishna Marwari Vs. Sarbeswar Nag and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal684a
v. Dhunwanti Koer (1912) 17 C.W.N. 1016 and Ramani Pershad N. Singh v. Mahanth Adaya Gossain (1903) 31 Cal. 380.3. In these cases similar statements were hold inadmissible but without sufficient discussion of the law. In the
Askaran Choutmal Vs. E.i. Ry. and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal696
case in which he is so retained' [see also B.N. Sen v. Chuni Lal Dutt & Co. : AIR1924Cal651 . I am further of opinion that such a compromise would be valid and binding upon the parties … great respect I jam unable to subscribe to the doctrine that the status of an advocate of the Calcutta High Court differs from that of a barrister in England. I apprehend that the rights, privileges and obligations … is to return the brief.4. In Hutchinson v. Stephens, (1837) 1 Keen 659 Lord Langdale, M.R. remarked: 'With respect to the task, which I may
Prasanna Kumar Ray Vs. Arun Chandra Singha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal656
to his reference to other dowls, for clearly the language of other documents not in suit cannot be called in aid to construe the words of a particular document which is in suit.If the question to be … 2 krants which calculated at the kabuliyat rate would make the rent payable for the excess land Rs. 66-11-0, but instead of allowing this amount the Judge has allowed only Rs. 58 although this added to the
18-section briefs on any result in this list
A.H. Turner Vs. King Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal673
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the first case, that of T.O.S. Martin-dale v. King Emperor A.I.R. 1925 Cal. 14, the application for leave to appeal was heard by this Bench. It was then granted on an
Surendra Nath Tagore Vs. K.S. Bannerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal630
1. This Rule is directed against two orders of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Trust Tribunal, dated the 30th August and the 26th September 1924. The matter arose in this way.
Jogendra Narayan Singha and ors. Vs. Mohamed Ismail Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal637
of all these persons. Kiranbala Devi was plaintiff No. 5 and the appellant, Kali Charan Singha, plaintiff No. 6. The suits proceeded to a hearing and a large number of witnesses were examined and a large number … Court did not proceed further. An application was then made to this Court before the same Judges to call up the records from the Lower Court for the purposes of recording the compromise. The records came to
Gokul Khatik Vs. King Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal674
fraud which is alleged to have been committed by the accused person. I mean the evidence of P.W. 6, who speaks to the fact that on a particular occasion he was cheated by the accused in respect … judgment of the Honorary Magistrate inasmuch as he states that it was the duty of the accused to call the doctor whose coachman has been examined as the D. W. No. 1 and he was not prepared
Ahmed Ali Vs. Madhab Ram Namasudra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal671
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of certain properties on the basis of a conveyance, which the plaintiff obtained from two...
Aswini Kumar Dutt and ors. Vs. Puti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal678
other enquiries or trials. In my judgment in the case of Hira Lal Ghosh v. The King-Emperor : AIR1924Cal889 . I have discussed the intention of the legislature in enacting this provision and I can see nothing
Sreedhar Chaudhury Vs. Nilmoni Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal681
cases and under special conditions [See Motivahu v. Premvahu (1892) 16 Bom. 511; Mahomed v. Zoharra (1889) 17 Cal. 285]. But although I refuse the present application, I am prepared to assist the applicants as far as … There was an appeal against my judgment, but the same was dismissed. My judgment is reported in : AIR1924Cal964 wherein I have set out fully the facts to which my attention was drawn in the said application
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »
Hover bars for counts · drag or use +/− to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free