Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.33 seconds)Section 16 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Article 56 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 91 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
P. Saraswathi Ammal vs Lakshmi Ammal Alias Lakshmi Kantam on 4 March, 1977
The said observation in AIR 1978 Madras 361 (P.Saraswathi Ammal Vs. Lakshmi Ammal alias Lakshmi Kantam) has been based on an earlier decision of the Honourable Apex Court in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 878 (Subhas Chandra Das Mushib - appellant Vs. Ganga Prosad Das Mushib and others - respondents), wherein the relevant observation of the Honourable Apex Court relevant for the purpose of this case runs as follows:-
Article 59 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Subhas Chandra Das Mushib vs Ganga Prosad Das Mushib And Ors on 14 September, 1966
The said observation in AIR 1978 Madras 361 (P.Saraswathi Ammal Vs. Lakshmi Ammal alias Lakshmi Kantam) has been based on an earlier decision of the Honourable Apex Court in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 878 (Subhas Chandra Das Mushib - appellant Vs. Ganga Prosad Das Mushib and others - respondents), wherein the relevant observation of the Honourable Apex Court relevant for the purpose of this case runs as follows:-
Narayan Sahu And Ors. vs Mohant Damodar Das on 15 July, 1912
"The applicant must have knowledge not merely of the factum of the sale, but a clear and definite knowledge of the facts which constitute the fraud before time can run against him or her. This is apparent from the number of reported cases to one of which we may refer, namely, Narayan Sahu vs. Damodar Das (1912-16 CWN 894 = 16 IC 464).