various posts in the newly established
Bombay Rationing Organisation (BRO) the State Government
sanctioned a skelton staff. In addition to the sanctioned
staff, the existing ... erstwhile adhoc
organisation of Controller of Foodgrains (CFD) were taken
into the BRO. Since it was considered necessary to have
experienced staff for manning higher
decision in the case of Love v. L'Estrange 3 Bro. 337. "It was not a simple unqualified gift, but there were many ... Gottenham referring to the eases of Love v. L'Estrange 3 Bro. 337 and Hanson v. Graham 6 Ves. 239 makes the following observations
necessary permits
from the Pakistan authorities. On December 13, 1949, the appellant bro
ught a suit for compensation for non-delivery
of the goods
Parte Bolton School (1789) 2 Bro. C.C. 662 : 29 E.R. 367 Attorney General v. Dulwich College (1841) 4 Beav
circumstances,
may perhaps be excused for mentioning Tweddel
v. Tweddel [(1787) 2 Bro C.C. 151)], Butler v.
Butler
assets are liable to make compensation;" but in Scurfield v. Homes Bro. C.C. 90 the trustee's estate had derived no benefit
Lord Thurlow said in the case of Gwynne v. Heaton (1778) 1 Bro. C.C. 1 : 28 E.R. 949, an inequality so strong, gross
V.S. Ramaswamy Iyer And Anr. vs Brahmayya & Co., Official Liquidators, ... on 10 August
back as 1767 Lord Camden in Smith v. Clay (1767) 3 Bro. C.C. 646 observed as follows (p. 640) :-
A court of equity
recei-| ly with the other
| | |ver represen-| seven defendants.
| | |ting his bro-|
| | |ther Debendra|
| | |Kumar Basu. |
| | | |
| | | |2. Refund of the cos-
| | | | ts realized
