Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)
Dwarka Nath Chakrabarti Chowdhury vs Atul Chandra Chakrabarti Chowdhury And ... on 14 April, 1927 cites

Ram Protap Champia vs Durga Prosad Champia on 20 October, 1925

That this is so has been explained by the Judicial Committee in the case of Ram Protap Chamria v. Durga Prosad Chamria . In the present case what the arbitrator had to do was wholly outside the scope of the pleadings in the suit. The Subordinate Judge, therefore, was clearly wrong in proceeding on the supposition that the petition of the 16th March, 1925, was one which gave him jurisdiction to proceed under paras.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi vs Midnapur Zemindari Company Ltd. on 6 July, 1914

13. The intention of the parties appears clearly from the wording of the petition itself. It stated: "The arbitrator shall within 14 days from this day or as soon as possible, make the division in the aforesaid manner. After the aforesaid arbitrator files his report in Court after effecting the division in the aforesaid manner, the plaintiff shall withdraw the aforesaid Suit No. 269 of 1922 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh without permission to institute a fresh suit, and after the plaintiff withdraws the aforesaid suit, the defendants shall withdraw the allegations made in their written statement against the truth of the plaintiff's purchase." It was an adjustment by a lawful agreement or compromise which the petition purported to notify to the Court as contemplated by Order XXIII, Rule 3, and if the terms were carried out, as intended, by the arbitrator appointed by the parties, it could have been recorded and the suit allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed, and the objectionable passages in the written statement could have been deleted. If the adjustment had taken place, that is to say if the said arbitrator had not refused to act but had done what was expected, the compromise or agreement would then have been recited in the decree, though the decree would have been, confined in its operation to so much of the subject-matter of the suit as was dealt with by the agreement: Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midnapore Zemindari Co. Ltd. 53 Ind. Cas. 534 : 47 C. 485 at pp. 495 : 496 : 46 I.A. 240 : 31 C.L.J. 298 : 37 M.L.J. 525 : 17 A.L.J. 1117 : 24 C.W.N. 177 : (1920) M.W.N. 66 : 27 M.L.T. 42 : 11 L.W. 301 : 22 Bom. L.R. 488 (P.C.).
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 115 - Full Document
1