Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)
P., A Pleader vs Judges Of The High Court Of Allahabad on 17 September, 1936 cites

Delhi Cotton And General Mills Co. vs The Income Tax Commissioner on 26 July, 1927

2. The same principle appears to have been applied by their Lordships in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Income tax Commissioner, Delhi 54 I.A. 421 : 10 Ind. Cas. 156 : A.I.R. 1927 P.C. 242 : 4 O.W.N. 1053 : 8 P.L.T. 791 : 25 A.L.J. 964 : 53 M.L.J. 819 : 47 C.L.J. 1 : 30 Bom. L.R. 60 : I.L.T. 40 Lah. 1 : 32 C.W.N. 237 : 29 P.L.R. 37 : (1928) M.W.N. 95 : 27 L.W. 179 (P.C.), where the wrods in Sub-section 2, Section 66(A), of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, were textually the same as the concluding words of Section 109(c) Civil Procedure Code. It would, therefore, seem to follow that the certificate is not to be granted as a matter of course, but can be granted where the case is otherwise a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 54 - Full Document

T.C.A. Anandalwan vs The Judges Of The High Court Of ... on 10 February, 1930

Again in T.G.A. Anandalawan v. Judges of the Madras High Court (1930) A.L.J. 539 : 123 Ind. Cas. 184 : A.I.R. 1930 P.C. 144 : 31 Cr. L.J. 489 : 7 O.W.n. 517 : 51 C.L.J. 418 : 58 M.L.J. 635 : 34 C.W.N. 534 : (1930) M.W.N. 300 : 32 Bom. L.R. 876 : 31 L.W. 627 : Ind. Rul. (1930) P.C. 168 (P.C.) a Vakil had been struck off the roll of Vakils. Their Lordships accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. The both these cases the: practitioners concerned were governed by the Legal Practitioners Act and not the Bar Councils Act. As regards Advocates, there have been two recent decisions of this Court that an appeal lies: see Bahadur lal v. Judges of Allahabad High Court A.I.R. 1933 All. 18. 143 Ind. Cas. 480 : (1932) A.L.J. 864 : Ind. Rul. (1933) All.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Shiva Narain Jafa vs The Judges Of The Allahabad High Court on 6 April, 1936

266. and Shiva Narain v. Judges of Allahabad High Court (1934) A.L.J. 722 : 150 Ind. Cas. 699 : A.I.R. 1934 All. 898 : 56 A 702 : 7 R.A. 11. In the latter case it was pointed out by this High Court that the Calcutta and the Patna High Courts had taken a contrary view, which was not followed by this Court. Their Lordships in their judgment did not make any; adverse comment on this. But leave under Section 109(c) cannot be granted as a matter of courts, and the applicant, has to satisfy us that the case is otherwise a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1