Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)Section 25 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Jaffer Meher Ali vs Budge-Budge Jute Mills Co. on 8 May, 1906
Section 23 of the Contract Act inter alia says that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless the court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. The word 'object' in Section 23 of the Contract Act has not been used in the same sense as 'consideration' which has been used to dis-tinguish it from 'consideration' and means 'purpose' or 'design' (see Jaffer Meher Ali v. Budge-Budge Jute Mills Co. ILR 33 Cal 702, which was upheld in appeal in Jaffer Meher Ali v. Budge-Budge Jute Mills Co. ILR 34 Cal 289 and Sabava Yellappa v. Yaman-appa Sabu AIR 1933 Bom 209).
Section 25 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Central Glass Industries Ltd. vs Abdul Hossain on 2 April, 1947
9. In reply Mr. Engineer said that Section 25(1) of the Act conferred a right of appeal from a decision of the Divisional Bench if it fulfilled the requirements stated in the provisos to Section 25(1); that Section 25(1) nowhere said that an appeal to a Full Bench would lie only on certain specific grounds; and that this section served out its purpose when the appeal was admitted and thereafter it was open to the appellant to raise in the appeal questions of law as well as of facts though this Court might not, as a matter of practice, disturb findings of fact except in exceptional circumstances to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Reliance was placed on Central Glass Industries Ltd., v. Abdul Hossain, (AIR 1948 Cal 12).
Section 30 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Vatsavaya Venkata Subhadrayamma vs Poosapati Venkatapati on 5 May, 1924
The Privy Council observed in Vatsavaya Ven-kata Subhadrayyamma v. Sri Poosapati Venkatapati Raju Garu, AIR 1924 P. C. 162 that in the construction of written or printed documents, it is legitimate in order to ascertain their true meaning if that be doubtful, to have regard to the circumstances surrounding their creation and the subject-matter to which it was designed and intended they should apply.