Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.22 seconds)
Documents citing Chaudhri Umrao Singh And Anr. vs Umrao Singh And Anr. on 18 June, 1914

Shyama Bhai vs Purushothamadoss on 16 February, 1925

In Umrao Singh v. Laohman Singh (1911) 33 All. 344, it was held by their Lordships of the Privy Council that a person is not precluded from setting up an inconsistent case in a subsequent litigation : (seethe observations at p. 355), I do not think it can be said that the contention put forward in the previous suit, in support of a legal argument, can by itself become a foundation for any estoppel.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.V.S. Varadaraja Chettiar vs K.V.C. Chenni Veeri Chettiar And Ors. on 26 August, 1968

3. Umrao Singh v. Umrao Singh, 47 Ind Cas 905 = (AIR 1918 All 356) does not appear to decide the point and there is no other case which directly deals with it. But Rajagopala Chettiar v. Razack Sahib, and Vedachala Naicker v. Duraiswami Mudaliar, provide the nearest parallel, which have been decided in the context of Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921. It has been held in those cases that the subsequent withdrawal of the suit will not render the application filed under Section 9 intructuous, but the latter will have to be dealt with and disposed of according to the merits. I think the principle of these cases will have application to the instant case.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1