Kishan Chand vs Ram Babu on 25 February, 1964
This provision was followed in Steel v. Smith, (1817) 1 B and Aid 94: 149 RR 723, Lord Ellenborough C. J. observed at page 99:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.50 seconds)Manindra Nath Biswas vs Radhasyam Biswas on 21 May, 1953
Even more extreme instances are to be found in -- 'Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., v. Charles Joseph Smith', AIR 1930 Pat 108 (Z4), -- 'Krishna Prasad v. Pratap Narayan', AIR 1934 Pat 608 (Z5) and -- 'Mool Chand v. Lalta Prasad', .
V.M. Syed Mohamed And Co. And Anr. vs The State Of Madras Represented By The ... on 29 August, 1952
17. Vide also -- 'Georgia R. & Bkg. Co. v. Smith', (1888) 128 U. S. 174 : 32 Law Ed. 377 and -- 'United States v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.', (1934) 291 U. S. 457 : 78 Law Ed. 909.
Buragada Venkatarao And Anr. vs Godavarti Venkatratnam And Ors. on 8 August, 1951
In discussing the legal aspect of the case Lord Fairfield referred to the English decisions, chiefly to -- 'Cauringtons Ltd. v. Smith', (1906) 1 K.B. 79 as well as the decision of the Court of Appeal in -- 'Reading Trust v. Spero', (1930) I K.B. 492 to which the learned Law Lord himself as Lord Justice Greer was a party.
H. Venkata Sastri And Sons By Its Manager ... vs Rahilna Bi And Ors. on 28 July, 1961
In support of that contention reference was made to the decisions, in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Charles Joseph Smith (1929) I.L.R. 8 Pat.
H. Venkata Sastri And Sons And Ors. vs Rahilna Bi And Ors. on 5 December, 1960
In support of that contention reference was to the decisions in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. V. Charles Joseph Smith, ILR 8 Pat.
Nageswara Ayyar vs M.L.M. Ramanathan Chettiar And Anr. on 16 October, 1934
In the case which was ultimately decided by the House of Lords in Samuel v. Newbould (1906) AC 461, there was considerable discussion as to the considerations with reference to which this question of the rate of interest being excessive was to be decided and in another case reported in Carrlngtons Limited v. Smith (1906) 1 KB 79 Channel, J., who was one of the learned Judges who decided the House of Lords case at an earlier stage, forcibly pointed oat certain difficulties attending the decision of this question. The same matter was also raised before the House of Lords and it may be useful to refer to the observations of one of the learned Lords in that connexion. At p. 473 in 1906 A C Lord James observes:
Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited vs A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr. on 23 November, 2009
[See: Rutter and Co. v. Smith (1901) 18 RPC 49 (High Court of
Justice, Chancery Division); John Knight & Sons v. Crisp
(1904) 21 RPC 671 (High Court of Justice, Chancery Division);
Burberrys v. Watkinson (1906) 23 RPC 141 (High Court of
Justice, Chancery Division); Armstrong Oiler Company Ld v.
Patent Axlebox and Foundry Company (1910) 27 RPC 362
(High Court of Justice, Chancery Division)]. In any event, to
show that the Defendant was „availing‟ a jurisdiction, a series of
transactions by way of commercial dealings would have to be
shown to have taken place within the forum state.
1