Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.20 seconds)
Documents citing Sheo Balak Singh And Ors. vs Radhey Singh And Ors. on 29 July, 1919

Chhagmull Agarwalla vs Amanatulla Mahammad Prodhan on 13 March, 1924

In the case of Indurjeet Singh v. Radhey Singh (1874) 21 W.R. 269, Phear J. observed as follows "Generally from the nature of claim to mesne profits, mesne profits ought not to be estimated for any period during which the defendant, who is to be made responsible for them was not active in keeping the plaintiff out of possession". In that case the property was in the hands of a receiver appointed by the Court, and the learned Judge pointed out that the defendant could not be answerable for damage's for mesne profits in respect of those year's during which an officer of the Court and not the defendant was keeping the plaintiff out of possession.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Chhaganmull Agarwalla And Ors. vs Amanathulla Mohammad Prodhan And Anr. on 13 March, 1924

In the case of Indurjeet Singh v. Radhey Singh (1874) 21 W.R. 269, Phear J., observed as follows: "Generally from the nature of claim to mesne profits, means profits ought not to be estimated for any period during which the defendant, who is to be made responsible for them was not active in keeping the plaintiff out of possession." In that case the property was in the hands of a Receiver appointed by the Court and the learned Judge pointed out that the defendant could not be answerable for damages for mesne profits in respect of those years during which an officer of the Court and not the defendant was keeping the plaintiff out of possession.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1