Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)
Venkanna Narasinha vs Laxmi Sannappa on 20 November, 1950 cites

Dattatraya Maruti Shanbhag vs Laxman Jattappa Shanbhag on 12 December, 1941

129) as directly laying down any such proposition as is contained in Dattaraya Maruti v. Laxman Jattappa . It remains, therefore, to be considered how far we would be justified in holding that the Hindu residents of the North Kanara District are governed by the Bombay school of Hindu law & not by the Madras School of Hindu law in spite of a decision of a Ot. of coordinate jurisdiction to the contrary.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Jairam Nathu vs Nathu Shamji And Ors. on 17 August, 1906

He further observed that event though the case of Jairam v. Nathu, 31 Bom. 54: (8 Bom. L. B. 692) was governed by the Vyavahara Mayukha, it was sufficient to state that on this point there was no difference between the Vyavahara Mayukha & the Mitakshara, & that that conclusion was based upon the express text of Yajnavalkya. It may be observed that in this decision also the Hindu residents of the North Kanara District were taken to be governed by the Bombay school of Hindu law & no other. This decision was reached in the year 1024.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Bhimabai Kom Jivangouda Patil vs Gurunathgouda Khandappagouda Patil on 4 November, 1932

25. It was urged that even in the case of adoption their Lordships of the P. C. did not apply the principle of stare decisis & an instance was quoted before us in the decision of their Lordships of the P. C. reported in Bhimabai v Gurunathgouda . It has, however, to be observed that their Lordships of the P C. did not consider this aspect with any seriousness for the simple reason that at p. 209 they observed :
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 31 - Full Document
1   2 Next