Skip to content


Multiple - Judgment Search Results

Home > Cases Phrase: multiple Year: 1951 Page 1 of about 36 results (0.01 seconds)
Jul 27 1951 (HC)

Shankar Nathu Vs. Gangaram Nathu and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Jul-27-1951

Reported in: AIR1952Bom127; (1952)54BOMLR75; ILR1952Bom485

act causing the death of the party we need not multiply illustrations of this type it is only those rights which

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Sep 04 1951 (HC)

Govind Balkrishna and ors. Vs. Ramchandra Rajaram and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Sep-04-1951

Reported in: AIR1952Bom395; (1952)54BOMLR263; ILR1952Bom621

the case before us and there is no need to multiply authorities on this point which arises for our consideration we

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Mar 26 1951 (FN)

United States Vs. Lewis

Court: US Supreme Court

Decided on: Mar-26-1951

money many inequities are inherent in the income tax we multiply them needlessly by nice distinctions which have no place in

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Sep 12 1951 (HC)

Mt. Girraj Kunwar Vs. Irfan Ali and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Sep-12-1951

Reported in: AIR1952All686

immunities or appendages is claimed it is not necessary to multiply authorities but i may usefully refer to the case of

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Dec 10 1951 (HC)

Chandar Das Vs. Malla and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Dec-10-1951

Reported in: AIR1952Raj136

the earlier case was upheld it is not necessary to multiply cases 4 the fact that the order of acquittal was

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Jul 24 1951 (HC)

Ammireddi Sooramma Vs. Ammireddi Venkataratnam

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jul-24-1951

Reported in: AIR1952Mad166; (1951)2MLJ664

in the mother s womb it is not necessary to multiply cases it cannot be disputed that under the hindu law

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Nov 28 1951 (HC)

Relam Subba Naicker Avergal, (Died) and anr. Vs. Sundarabala Kathiresa ...

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Nov-28-1951

Reported in: AIR1954Mad158; (1952)IIMLJ752

section 14 limitation act 23 it is not necessary to multiply authorities on this part of the case 24 this leads

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Aug 24 1951 (HC)

Rm. Nl. Ramaswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Official Receiver, Represe ...

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Aug-24-1951

Reported in: AIR1951Mad1051; (1951)2MLJ479

proceed in due course of law it is unnecessary to multiply authorities though it may be useful to refer to the

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Nov 16 1951 (HC)

President of F. 1250 Chowghat Firka P.C.C. Co-operative Society Ltd., ...

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Nov-16-1951

Reported in: AIR1953Mad996; (1952)IMLJ459

necessary for me in the view 1 have taken to multiply the authorities or to refer to those that have been

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Aug 03 1951 (HC)

D.K. Chandra Vs. the State

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Aug-03-1951

Reported in: AIR1952Bom177; (1951)53BOMLR928; ILR1952Bom540

..... of more than one offence in the same trial and thus multiplicity of trials could be avoided these circumstances are mentioned in sections ..... accused should be faced in one trial with such a bewildering multiplicity of charges but that result must necessarily follow if we were ..... of the code i realise that this view might lead to multiplicity of prosecutions which could be avoided in a few cases without .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

  • << Prev.

Sign-up to get more results

Unlock complete result pages and premium legal research features.

Start Free Trial

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //