Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)Section 72 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sri Sri Shiba Prasad Singh vs Maharaja Srish Chandra Nandi on 18 July, 1949
16. Mr. Sanyal has lastly contended that, as the question raised was never argued at any earlier stage, it is not open to the applt. to raise this question for the first time before us. In my opinion, this point is equally unsustainable. As the question raised is a pure question of law, & can be decided on the findings of the Courts below without investigation of any further fact, we have allowed the appellant to argue the question before us. In this connection I may quote the observation of Lord Reid in Shiba Prasad v. Srish Chandra Nandi, 28 Pat. 913 at p. 924 : (A. I. R. (36) 1949 P. C. 297).
Maha Prasad Singh vs Ramani Mohan Singh on 19 May, 1914
We are also fortified in this view by the decisions in Maha Prasad v. Ramani Mohan, 41 I. A. 197 : (A. I. R. (1) 1914 P. C. 140); M. E. Moolla Sons, Ltd. v. Perin R. Burjorjee, 59 I. A. 161 : (A. I. R. (19) 1932 P. C. 118) & Debi Charan v. Mehdi Hussain, l Pat. L. J. 485 : (A. I. R. (3) 1916 Pat. 317). Under the circumstances, 'the appeal is allowed & the decree modified by disallowing the claim on account of the price received for energy supplied for battery charging & the surcharge thereon ; but as the point was not raised in any of the Cts. below, we make no order as to the costs of this appeal.
Sattappa Gurusattappa Hukeri vs Mahomedsaheb Appalal Kazi on 15 August, 1935
317), Sattappa, Gurusattappa v. Mahomedsaheb, 60 Bom. 516: (A. I. R. (23) 1936 Bom.
Fitzholmes vs The Bank Of Upper India on 9 November, 1926
227) & Fitzholmes v. Bank of Upper India, Ltd., 8 P. L. T. 377 : (A. I. R. (14) 1927 P. C. 25).