Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.94 seconds)Section 110 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 53 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Kapurji Magniram vs Pannaji Devichand on 7 August, 1928
This view has been expressed in 'Mahabir Prasad v. Brijmohan Prasad', 1936 Pat 553 (AIR V 23) (L) ; 'Narendra Lal Das v. Gopendra Lal Das', 1927 Cal 543 (AIR V 14) (M) ; 'Bibhuti Bhusan Dutta v. Sreepati Dutta', 1935 Cal 146 (AIR V 22) (N); 'Fateh Kunwar v. Durbijai Singh', 1952 All 942 (AIR V 39) (PB) (O); 'Venkata-swami Chettiar v. Sekkutti Pillai', 1936 Mad 881 (AIR V 23) (P); 'Subba Rao v. Chellamayya', 1952 Mad 771 (AIR V 39) (Q); 'Kapurji Magniram v. Pannaji Debichand', 1929 Bom.
Govind Dhondo Kulkarni vs Vishnu Keshav Kulkarni on 17 December, 1947
359 (AIR V 16) (R); 'Govind Dhondo v. Vishnu Keshav', 1949 Bom 164 (AIR V 36) (S) ; 'Brahma Nand v. Sanatan Dharm Sabha', 1944 Lah 329 (AIR V 31) (PB) (T) and 'Wahid-ud-din Sheikh v. Makhan Lal', 1944 Lah 458 (AIR V 31) (PB) (U).
Haji Sheikh Wahid-Uddin vs B. Makhan Lal And Anr. on 4 May, 1938
359 (AIR V 16) (R); 'Govind Dhondo v. Vishnu Keshav', 1949 Bom 164 (AIR V 36) (S) ; 'Brahma Nand v. Sanatan Dharm Sabha', 1944 Lah 329 (AIR V 31) (PB) (T) and 'Wahid-ud-din Sheikh v. Makhan Lal', 1944 Lah 458 (AIR V 31) (PB) (U).
Nathu Lal vs Raghubir Singh And Ors. on 7 July, 1925
The third view is that if the decree of the lower court has been varied in part to the prejudice of the proposed appellant, he is entitled to prefer an appeal to the Privy Council or to the Supreme Court if the proposed appeal embraces both the affirmed and the varied portions of the decree. This view will appear from 'Jamna Prasad Singh v. Jaga-rnath Prasad', 1929 Pat 561 (AIR V 16) (V) ; 'Natlu Lal v. Raghubir Singh', 1932 All 65 (AIR V 19) (SB) (W); 1952 All 942 (AIR V 39) (O) ; 'Perichiappa Chettiar v. Nachiappan', 1932 Mad 46 (AIR V 19) (X); 'Gangadhara Ayyar v. Subramanla Sas- trigal', 1946 Mad 539 (AIR V 33) (FB) (Y) and 'Abdur Samad v. Mt. Aisha Bibi', 1948 Oudh 76 (AIR V 35) (Z). The fourth view is that in such a case the appeal has to be limited!
Saiyid Jowad Hussain vs Gendan Singh on 15 June, 1926
Obviously it is preferred against a decree or an order. There is no appeal from an item of a decree or that of an order. This has been made perfectly clear by the Privy Council in the case of 'Jowad Hussain v. Gendan Singh', 1926 PC 93 (AIR V 13) (C), wherein their Lordships held that an appeal must be against a decree as pronounced and though it may be rested on an argument directed to special items, it must be against the decree and the decree alone.
Raja Sreenath Roy And Ors. vs Secretary Of State For India In Council ... on 22 August, 1922
"The collocation of the words 'the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council' of Clause (1) of Section 110, Civil P. C. and of the words in Clause (3) 'the decree or final order appealed from' is not such as to necessitate the reading together of the two sets of words so as to curtail a right of appeal which, on the only mode of construction justified by the plain positions in the section occupied by the two sets of words or at any rate on an equally possible manner of construction of which they are susceptible, is available to the litigant. This mode of reading together of the two sets of words is that lay at the root of the doctrine of Raja Sreenath Roy v. Secy, of State, 8 Cal WN 294 (Z2) which admittedly stands overruled by 1925 PC 60 (AIR V 12) (E)."