Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (1.79 seconds)
Documents citing Row Venkata Kumara Mahipati Surya Row ... vs Gani Venkat Subba Row And Ors. And ... on 1 April, 1915

Makar Ali vs Sarfaddin And Ors. on 13 June, 1922

37 : 41 C. 1125 : 19 C.L.J. 549 : 18 C.W.N. 804; Rajah of Pittapur v. Gani Venkata Subba Row 30 Ind. Cas. 94 : 39 : M. 645 : 29 M.L.J. 1 : 18 M.L.T. 67 : (1915) M.W.N. 547 : 2 L.W. 661. We hold accordingly that the right of the plaintiff to maintain the present suit must be determined with reference, to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882, when the sale took place, and his title as execution-purchaser accrued on confirmation.
Calcutta High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Rajasthan Worsted Spinning Mills vs Collector Of Central Excise on 30 November, 1989

18. However, this controversy should not detain us further since in our considered opinion the said question stands concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Insurance Co. v. Shanti Misra, AIR 1976 SC 237, wherein after quoting with approval the proposition of law laid down by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Rajah of Pittapur v. Venkata Subba Row, supra, their Lordships observed as follows :-
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Tirumalaisami Naidu vs Subramaniam Chettiar on 15 December, 1916

37 : 41 C. 1125 : 19 C.L.J. 549 : 18 C.W.N. 804 and similarly it was held by a Full Bench of this Court in Rajah of Pittapur v. Gani Venkat Subba Row 30 Ind. Cas. 94 : 39 M. 645 : 29 M.L.J. 1 : 18 M.L.T. 67 : 2 L.W. 661: (1915) M.W.N. 547 that a new rale of limitation must be read subject to an implied exception in cases where its provisions would absolutely destroy the right of suit, which was in existence when that rule came into force. On this ground also the plaintiff is entitled to succeed.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

G. Narayanaswami Naidu And Ors. vs The Inspector Of Police on 30 July, 1948

In Rajah of Pittapur v. Venkata Subba Rao (1915) 29 M.L.J. 1 : I.L.R. 39 Mad. 645 Wallis, C.J. and Kumaraswami Sastri, J., held, Seshagiri Aiyar, J., dissenting, that Section 211 of the Estates Land Act which prohibited the application of Section 7 of the Limitation Act to suits under the Estates Land Act should not be applied retrospectively to a suit filed by a landholder for recovering arrears of rent due for faslis before the passing of the Estates Land Act within three years of his attaining majority but more than three years after the rents had become due. By the time he filed the suit, the Estates Land Act had come into force. The ground of the decision was that Section 211 of the Estates Land Act should not be construed retrospectively so as to destroy or practically destroy rights of action existing on the date that Act came into force.
Madras High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tirumalaisami Naidu vs Subramanian Chettiar on 15 December, 1916

1125; and similarly it was held by a Full Bench of this Court in Rajah of Pittapur v. Venkata Subba Row (1916) I.L.R. 39 Mad. 645 that a new rule of limitation must be read subject to an implied exception in cases where its provisions would absolutely destroy the right of suit, which was in existence when that rule came into force. On this ground also the plaintiff is entitled to succeed.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

District School Board Of Belgaum vs Mohamad Mulla on 7 August, 1944

7. Mr. Madbhavi for the respondent has drawn my attention to a decision in Rajah of Pittapur v. Venkata Subba Row (1915) I.L.R. 39 Mad. 645. It is a judgment of a full bench consisting of Sir John Wallis, Chief Justice, Mir. Justice Seshagiri Ayyar and Mr. Justice Kumara-swami Sastriyar. The question there was whether Sections 210 and 211 and Article 8 of Part A of the Schedule of the Madras Estates Land Act (I of 1908) should be given a retrospective effect. In that case the Act came into force two days after it received the Viceroy's assent; and as pointed out by Sir John Wallis, Chief Justice, it left no opportunity to the plaintiff for the exercise of his vested right of suit. The claim for rent which was claimed in the suit was not barred at the date of the passing of the Act, and the result of the passing of the Act; was to leave no opportunity for the exercise of the plaintiff's vested right of suit; and Sir John Wallis held that the effect of the amendment would be, if construed retrospectively, to destroy the plaintiff's right of suit which was in existence when the Act came into force. Mr. Justice Kumaraswami Sastriar agreed with the view taken by Sir John Wallis and in his judgment too he has stressed the point that there was not sufficient time between the assent given to the Act by the Governor General and its coming into force so that the public had not due notice of the provisions of the new Statute which was going to come into force.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next