Prola Narasimham V Emperor - Law Dictionary Search Results
Same transaction
but a new one, in spite of the fact that the same general purpose may continue, Shapurji Sorabji v. Emperor, AIR 1936 Bom 154; Debi Prasad v. Emperor, 212 IC 135: Raj Kishore Tewari v. Rex, AIR 1949
Wholesale dealer
dealer, is a person who keeps for wholesale to traders a commodity for the purpose of trade, Manoharbhai v. Emperor, AIR 1946 Nag 248: 1945 ILR Nag 422: 1946 Mad LJ 319. Means a person who buys or
Property
property capable of being forcibly destroyed and does not includes an easement of customary right, see Rudraraju Ramaraju v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Mad 973; Sumitra v. Dhannu, AIR 1952 Nag 193. Property, means the highest right a man
Keep your definitions linked to case research
Goods
of s. 2 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 should include electricity, gas and water, Ras Behari v. Emperor, AIR 1936 Cal 753; Country of Durham Electrical Power Distribution Co. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, (1909) 2
Possession
Prasad Jaiswal v. Kanti Gupta, (1996) 1 BLJ 45. Possession, indicates possession with a power of disposal, Bhagchand v. Emperor, AIR 1934 Bom 200: (1934) 36 Bom LR 379. Possession, is a word that is incapable of an
Salary or wages
the seller place the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property, Pyare Lal v. Emperor, AIR 1945 All 135: (1945) ILR All 207. Sale, is found to consist of a number of ingredients
Malice
In its legal sense it means a wrongful act, done intentionally without just cause or excuse, Bhagat Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Lah 266. Malice has been said to mean any wrong or indirect motive but a prosecution
Letters-patent, or letters overt
Act of Parliament and it should be construed in the same way as an Act, Benoari Lal Sarma v. Emperor, AIR 1943 Cal 285.
Fracture
the crack must extend from the outer surface of the skull to the inner surface. In Mutukdhar Singh v. Emperor, A (1942) Pat 376, it was observed that if the evidence is merely that a none has been
Fractus augent h'reditatem
the crack must extend from the outer surface of the skull to the inner surface. In Mutukdhar Singh v. Emperor, A (1942) Pat 376, it was observed that if the evidence is merely that a none has been
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
Try the research workspace - 7 days free