Lothamasu Sambasiva Rao vs Thadwarthi Balakotiah on 14 November, 1972
Lothamasu Sambasiva Rao vs Thadwarthi Balakotiah on 14 November, 1972
Equivalent citations: AIR1973AP342, AIR 1973
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 1347 (2.01 seconds)Nochulliyil Euzhuvan Theethi'S Son ... vs The Eralpad Rajah Styled Elaya Rajah ... on 17 January, 1916
present case or ordinarily in India. The judgment of Lord Mansfield in Eaton v. Jaques (1780) 2 Dougl. 455 which was also referred ... anything an authority the other way. What Lord Mansfield held was that the mortgagee of a leasehold interest, even when the mortgage
Amrita Lal Bose And Ors. vs The Corporation Of Calcutta on 15 July, 1917
agree with my learned brother Chitty, J., that the dictum of Lord Mansfield in Rex v. Clark (1777) 2 Cowp ... parties shall for every such offence forfeit and lose £40 " Lord Mansfield in his judgment did not discuss that argument, but discharged the Rule
Union Of India (Uoi) By ... vs Amjad Miyan on 22 August, 1972
this stage, refer to the classical statement of the law by Lord Mansfield in Whitfield v. Lord Le Despencer (1778) 2 Cowp. 752, in which ... carry the letter; see Whitfield v. Lord Le Despencer (1778) 2 Cowp. 754 at p. 764 per Lord Mansfield. You could not recover in tort
Debananda Dora vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 November, 1964
This view was based mainly on the well known decision of Lord Mansfield in Whitfield v. Le Despencer, (1778) 2 Cowp 754. The reasons given ... taking this view may be quoted in the very words of Lord Mansfield:
"The Postmaster has no hire: enters into no contract: carries
Nochulliyil Eazhuvan Theethisson ... vs The Eralpad Rajah Styled Elaya Rajah ... on 17 January, 1917
present case or ordinarily in India, The judgment of Lord Mansfield in Eaton v. Jaques (1780) 2 Dougl. 455, which was also referred ... thing an authority the other way. What Lord Mansfield held was that the mortgagee of a lease-hold interest, even when the mortgage
Nani Lal Roy vs Satyendra Nath Roy on 18 June, 1951
another specific and adequate remedy. This is clearly laid down by Lord Mansfield in the case of The King v. Bank of England ... page 335 of 99 E R. Lord Mansfield observed :
"When there is no specific remedy, the Court will grant a mandamus that justice
M/S Banerjee & Banerjee vs National Insurance Co.Ltd on 8 July, 2013
given fact. This indeed appears to have been recognised by Lord
Mansfield in the root decision on the duty of utmost good faith,
Carter ... risk which
may take place between proposal and acceptance".
Lord Mansfield took the opportunity to explore the scope of
the duty of disclosure borne
The Sree Meenakshi Mills, Limited vs Calliangee And Sons And Ors. on 15 November, 1934
action must be for money had and received. As Lord Mansfield observed in Moses v. Macferlan ... though, by positive law, he was barred from recovering.
20. Although Lord Mansfield calls it an eqituable action it is, in truth, an action which
Mr Prabodh K. Mehta vs Smt. Charuben K. Mehta on 1 March, 2018
should extend also to political laws. It seems to me that
Lord Mansfield goes too far when he says that these courts
will take ... enforcement of their agreement."
His Lordship Denning, J. observes that, Lord Mansfield goes too far,
when he says that these courts will take