Row V Siddons - Judgment Search Results
Syed IkramuddIn Vs. Syed Mahamed Ali
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1986AP267
is an appurtenant land for the convenient enjoyment thereof. In support thereof, he relied upon the decision in Row v. Siddons, (1888) 22 QB 224, at p. 236, which was approved and followed in the Full Bench judgment of
Eknath Dayaram Wani Vs. Kishordas Thakurdas Sheth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1963
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR595; 1963MhLJ782
therefore, include the High Court exercising its power of revision under the Civil Procedure Code. See Venkatragayya Appa Row v. Murala Sriramalu (1912) 17 I.C. 593, Venkataswami v. Sara Bai A.I.R. [1943] Mad. 633, Lal Bihari Lall v.
Ramchandra Aggarwal and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: May-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1966SC1888; 1966CriLJ1514; [1966]SuppSCR393
in the High Court. We would also like to refer to the decision of this Court in Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1818, in which it was held that there is no reason for restricting the
18-section briefs on any result in this list
Subhash Chander Gupta and Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Anot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)277
forms a thick lawn free from weeds and fit for moving i/c supplying good earth if needed in rows 5 cm apart in earlier direction.2. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to payment at the rate … I.A. No. 7240 of 1993. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the award of the arbitrator is vitiated on account of the obvious mistake apparent on the face of the record. She also invited my attention
Jindal Exports Ltd. Vs. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(51)DRJ170
therein, which are illustrative and dot exhaustive. Tests laid down by Sir Arnol White, C.J. in T.V. Tulzaram Row v. M.K.R.V. Allagappachettiar I.L.R. (1912) Mad 1, were adopted and approved, which inter alias also laid down that if
Laxmi Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tarachand Harbilas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom250; (1967)69BOMLR629; ILR1967Bom1381; 1967MhLJ97
Doma Choudhary v. Ram Naresh, : AIR1959Pat121 (FB) and of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Raja Appa Row v. Veera Raghava. AIR 1966 Andh Pra 263.(12) We may make it clear at this stage that we are
Bhagirathibai and anr. Vs. Lalchand Balaram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Bom301; 1975MhLJ295
informed or better advised'. The following passage from the judgment of the Privy Council in Venkata Narasimha Appa Row v. Parthasarathy Appa Row, (1913) 41 Ind App 51 at p. 70 (PC) was then reproduced''The Courts are entitled
Maghraj Vs. Mst. Bayabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR434
applied towards satisfaction of the interest and costs and thereafter towards the principal would apply.5. In Venhatadri Appa Row v. Parthasarathi Appa Row the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council observed that upon taking an account of principal
Kuttan Narayanan Vs. Thomman Mathayi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker179
against all the world except the person who can show a better title is staled thus in Narayana Row v. Dharma-char, (1903) ILR 26 Mad 514 at p. 518:'The principle underlying the rule of law in question seems
Krishna Warrier Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ915
has with one voice been condemned by all the three learned Judges constituting the Full Bench in - Row V.G. v. State of Madras : AIR1951Mad147 as absolutely void. Raja-mannar C. J. said : 'One could not find
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