Same Case - Judgment Search Results

Case Vs. Kelly

Court: US Supreme Court

..... arcadia mineral spring company replications were filed to the answers the case was put at issue as regards the three principal defendants and ..... this property and report the same to the court for which hiles was to be paid in case complainant should elect to take ..... states must be binding in proceedings in federal courts in the same state indeed the distinction between public and private acts has become .....

Queen-empress Vs. Saminatha

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad400

..... commission of an offence or the guilt of the person screened from punishment 2 the cases cited by mr mayne under sections 213 and 214 indian penal code regina v best ..... our attention to queen v hurdut surma 8 w r cr rul 68 wherein the same expression was differently construed with reference to section 218 of the indian penal code but .....

Vythilinga Muppanar Vs. Seethalakshmi Ammal

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1896)6MLJ44

made by the judgment debtor and must be limited to cases contemplated in sections 331 335 of the civil procedure code

Asirun Bibi Vs. Sliarip Mondul and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal488

the view taken by the division bench which referred this case is correct the plaintiff will therefore be entitled to a

Makhan Lall Datta Vs. Goribullah Sardar

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal542

opinion that the small cause court has jurisdiction in this case clearly neither article 4 nor article 11 of the schedule

Kabuli Vs. Bhuli

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal289

comer petheram c j and pigot j 1 after the case of hurrosoondery dosee v kallypoddo dutt 14 b l r

Prem Sook and anr. Vs. Dhurum Chand and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal321

that fact is not material to the decision of this case resold them again in calcutta to another dealer and that

Hiraman De Vs. Ram Kumar Ain

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal186

the district magistrate not being competent to refer such a case under section 438 had no authority to admit the accused

Natabar Parue and ors. Vs. Kubir Parue and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal80

section 9 of the specific relief act applies to a case now before him the facts as found by him and

Tilak Chandra Dass Vs. Fatik Chandra Dass and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal803

decree of the munsif must be set aside and the case be remitted to him to be tried as a regular