Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.14 seconds)

(Mantrala) Yegnanarayana vs Vankamamidi Yagannadha Rao And Ors. on 23 March, 1931

In Nihal Singh v. The Collector of Bulandshahr, [1916] 38 All. 237, it was observed: "it is somewhat doubtful whether the doctrine of Merry weather v. Nixan, 8 T.R. 185, should be applied to India, but it is certain that it will not be extended: see the remarks of the other noble Lords who decided Palmer's case., [1894] A.C. 318, In our opinion however the question hardly arises in the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Contract Act

feasor who is, or would if sued have been, liable in respect of the same damage, whether as a joint tort-feasor or otherwise, so, however, that no person shall be entitled to recover contribution under this section from any person entitled to be indemnified by him in respect of the liability of which the contri- bution is sought. a (2) In any proceedings for contribution under this section the amount of the contribution recover- able from any person shall be such as may be found by the court to be just and equitable hav- ing regard to the extent of that person's res- ponsibility for the damage; and the court shall 'E. g., Nihal Singh v. The Collector of Bulandshahar, 38 All. 237. 'S. 72B, App. I. '25-26 Geo. 5, c. 30.
Law Commission Report Cites 206 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sheo Ratan Singh vs Karan Singh And Ors. on 29 May, 1924

3. It has been generally recognized that the doctrine of Merry weather v. Nixan (1799) 8 T.R. 186, that no suit for contribution lies between tort feasors, does not apply in its full extent to India. A doubt has been expressed in some cases whether it applies at all, but the point has never been decided, nor is it necessary to decide it in this case. Nihal Singh v. The Collector of Bulandshahr (1916) I.L.R. 38 All.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next