Khirad Chandra V Panchu - Judgment Search Results
Konthan Kesavan Vs. Varkey Thomman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker206
the judgment-debtor, would get a good title to the property. So also the dictum in the case in Khirad Chandra v. Panchu Gopal, AIR 1939 Pat 532 that a subsequent auction purchaser of the same property would not be precluded
Raje Vyankatrao Jagjiwanrao Deshmukh Vs. Sitalprasad Sivnath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR868; 1965MhLJ913
not be said to be one which was required to be decided by a Board: see also Krishna Chandra v. Panchu Ghosh : AIR1953Cal720 .12. A similar view has been taken in Lachmi Chand Suchanti V. Ram Pratap Choudhry
Tulsiram Ramkisan Vs. Ramsingh Pannusingh Raghuwanshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1961
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR41
before me by Mr. Chendke reported in Sat Narain v. Hanuman Parshad A.I.R [1940] Lab. 85 and Krishna Chandra v. Panchu Ghosh : AIR1953Cal720 wherein it has been held that if a special tribunal is contemplated by the legislation
18-section briefs on any result in this list
Nibaran Chandra Saha Vs. Matilal Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.561
appear and conduct the case. Under these circumstances there was an acceptance of the vakalatnama by him Mohesh Chandra v. Panchu Mudali 20 CWN 287 : 32 Ind. Cas. 395 : AIR 1916 Cal 979 : 43 C 884
Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. the State of Madras Overruled
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Feb-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1952SC149; 1952CriLJ832; (1952)IMLJ736(SC); [1952]1SCR425
has been taken and, in our opinion quite rightly, in a number of decisions by the Calcutta (Narayan Chandra v. Panchu Pramanik : AIR1935Cal684 ; Naresh Kumar v. Umaromal : AIR1951Cal489 ), Patna (Kaulashia v. Emperor (12 Pat. 1)),
Sardarilal Vs. Narayanlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-1979
Reported in: AIR1980MP8; 1981MPLJ76
Soondery Dabee ((1921)33 Cal LJ 516); Mt. Nepur Kuer v. Bhan Pratap, (AIR 1935 Pat 227) and Arun Chandra v. Panchu Modak, (AIR 1957 Assam 70). All these cases were decided without reference to Section 109 and are, therefore,
Mahendra Nath Roy Vs. Delraddi Chakdar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal285
Matched in: Advocate Bhabesh Chandra Mitra and ;Aruna Mukherji, Advs. Purnendu Narayan Nath and ;Sudhansu K. Hazra, Advs.
Bhagwati Prasad Bajpai Vs. Jai NaraIn Hanuman Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All425
at the time of the order such court had no territorial jurisdiction over the immovable properties.14. In Khirod Chandra v. Panchu Gopal, AIR 3939 Pat 532 (G), the same view has been expressed. The words of Atkinson J., in
Adhar Chandra Mondal Vs. Bistu Pada Gure and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal497,60CWN351
said to be one which requires to be decided by a Board'. Similarly in the case of Krishna Chandra v. Panchu Ghosh, : AIR1953Cal720 (B), it was observed by Sen J., --'Only if it is found there is no
Lakshmandas Chaganlal Bhatia and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom400; (1967)69BOMLR808; 1968CriLJ1584
decisions in Rash Behari Shaw v. Emperor : AIR1936Cal753 , Kishanchand v. Emperor, AIR 1926 Sind 171, Ram chandra Rango v. Emperor, 41 Bom Lr 98= AIR 1939 Bom 129; R. v. Dawson, (1965) 2 All ER … The Kind v. Ellis, (1910) 2 KB 746; R. v. Slender, (1938) 2 All ER 387, and Emperor v. Panchu Das, ILR 47 Cal 671=AIR 1920 Cal 500 (FB).57. On the other hand, in support of his contention
Hover bars for counts · use +/− or drag to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free