Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 427 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing Guran Ditta vs T. Ram Ditta on 24 April, 1928

Chaitru & Another vs Kali Dass & Others on 20 September, 2024

In Guran Ditta v. T. Ram Ditta, the phrase 'substantial question of law' as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 100 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - V Singh - Full Document

Kiran Ramanlal Inamdar vs Gujarat Housing Board on 4 May, 2023

In Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta 55IA 235 : AIR 1928 PC 172] the phrase "substantial question of law" as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 100 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - R Sareen - Full Document

Sh. Himmat Singh vs Sh. Satish Kumar & Ors on 5 September, 2023

In Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta 55I A 235: AIR 1928 PC 172] the phrase "substantial question of law" as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 100 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krushanadas Nagindas Bhate vs Bhagwandas Ranchhoddas And Ors. on 10 April, 1975

37. The view of the law which we are taking is supported not only by the aforesaid decision of the Allahabad High Court in Mrs. T. C. Paul's case, , based on the decision of the Privy Council in Lakshmiah's case, but also by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Keshavlal Tribhovandas v. Bai Dahi, 44 Bom LR 839 : AIR 1943 Bom 7 where following Guran Ditta's case AIR 1928 PC 172 this Court laid down "that the mere fact that the deposit was made in the name of the wife did not show that a gift to her was intended".
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Rishi Petrochem Private Limited ... vs Dipen Prahladbhai Patel on 3 April, 2024

In Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta [Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta, 1928 SCC OnLine PC 31 : (1927-28) 55 IA 235 : AIR 1928 PC 172] the phrase "substantial question of law" as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 100 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhupinder Kumar Sharma & Another vs Of on 18 September, 2023

In Guran Ditta v. T. Ram Ditta [AIR 1928 PC rt 172: 55 IA 235], the phrase "substantial question of law" as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 110 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case as between the parties.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dharwar Bank Ltd. vs Mahomed Hayat on 29 August, 1930

In this connexion the learned Assistant Judge has referred to the leading case of the Privy Council, Kerwick v. Kerwick A.I.R. 1921 P.C. 56, and there is a similar case, Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditto A.I.R. 1928 P.C. 172, from which it will appear that the doctrine of advancement would not apply in India. The question mainly arising is the shares being the property of the plaintiff, whether there is anything in the circumstances of this case which would prevent his recovering the property from the bank. So far as the argument is based on the Government Servants' Conduct Rules, it may be pointed out that Rules 12 does not constitute an absolute prohibition but merely prohibits an investment other then an investment in immovable property which gives him such private interest in matters with which his public duties are connected as would be likely in the opinion of the Local Government to embarrass or influence him in the discharge of his duties.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Perumal vs Thambikalan on 18 April, 2018

In Guran Ditta v. T. Ram Ditta [Guran Ditta v. T.Ram Ditta, AIR 1928 PC 172 : (1927-28) 55 IA 235 : 1928 SCC OnLine PC 31] , the phrase ?substantial question of law? as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 110 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case as between the parties.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next