Ramiah Chettiar vs Rukmani Ammal And Ors. on 11 November, 1912
decisions that they appear to be based on the English law of champerty and maintenance which has been held
Search Results Page
Search Results
41 - 50 of 144 (0.40 seconds)Nand Kishore Lal, Anmoli Bibi And Anr. ... vs Ahmad Ata And Anr. on 3 August, 1895
were champertous, though be says: "There is no positive law of champerty in the mofussil in India, but I still cannot suppose that
Vatsavaya Venkata Subhadrayamma vs Poosapati Venkatapati on 5 May, 1924
might never leave him anything whatever. In India, of course, champerty or maintenance is not illegal. In Glegg v Bromley ... purchase an interest in such fruits because of the doctrine of champerty.
36. In their Lordships' view the agreement embodied in paragraph
The Distt. Manager, Food Corporation Of ... vs Shri Kailash Chand & Others on 12 December, 2013
The Distt. Manager, Food Corporation Of ... vs Shri Kailash Chand & Others on 12 December
Bar Council Of India vs A.K. Balaji . on 13 March, 2018
Bar Council Of India vs A.K. Balaji . on 13 March, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIR
The Firm Of N. Peddanna Ogeti Balayya And ... vs Katta V. Srinivasayya Setti Sons on 9 October, 1952
Maintenance might have some bearing on such agreement. The question of Champerty again could arise if the Solicitor is to be paid
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Prakash Road Lines (P.) Ltd. on 10 August, 1987
assigned is that such an assignment would offend the rule of champerty and maintenance. Now, as in this case, where an insurance company has been
Amirtham Kudumban vs Sornam Kudumban on 29 July, 1976
that the law would not recognise any transaction savouring of maintenance or champerty. However, even in England, exceptions are recognised to this rule. One such
United India Fire And General Insurance ... vs Pelaniappa Transport Carriers And Anr. on 21 March, 1985
will not recognise any transaction which may savour of maintenance of champerty. It is only when there is some interest in the subject matter that
Monmatha Nath Dutt And Ors. vs Matilal Mitra And Ors. on 10 December, 1928
here, as certain transfers in England are not allowed as savouring of champerty or maintenance. Many conveyances which would not be allowed in England ... allowed in this country, because there is no rule against champerty or maintenance in this country. But the decisions of English Courts may serve