Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.21 seconds)Section 14 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
H.H. Brij Indar Singh vs Lala Kanshi Ram on 19 July, 1917
Brij Indar Singh v. Kanshi Ram A.I.R: 1917 P.C. 156. A brief review of some of the more important decisions therefore will not be altogether useless. ,.
Nagindas Motilal vs Nilaji Moroba Naik on 7 March, 1924
30. Martin and Pratt, JJ., in their judgments in the case of Nagindas Motilal v. Nilaji Moroba A.I.R. 1924 Bom.399 have pointed out how this strict rule has been subsequently relaxed and the Supreme Court Rules of Practice 1883 have been amended resulting in such decisions as Baker v. Faber [1908] W. N. 9 and Rumbold v. London County Council and Scott [1909] 100 L. T. 259. There can be no doubt that litigants in this country are, more often than not treated with greater indulgence in the matter of delay, when it is a question whether it should be excused or not under Section 5, Lim. Act,, on the ground of erroneous advice given by a lawyer. The explanation to Section 5 of the Act itself suggests it and there are decisions expressly laying this down.
Shib Dayal And Anr. vs Jagannath Prasad on 7 February, 1922
One of these decisions was passed only ten years ago in the case of Shib Dayal v. Jagannath Prasad A.I.R. 1922 All. 490 in which Sir Greenwood Mears, C. J., said:
Krishnasami Panikondar vs S.R.M.A.R. Ramasami Chettiar on 3 November, 1917
possible to go any further, if not only the appellant but his opponent have to be borne in mind, the latter having acquired a valuable right by the expiry of the time limited for preferring an appeal which should not be lightly tampered with: Krishnasami Pandikondar v. Ramasami Chettiar A.I.R. 1917 P.C. 179.
Brij Mohan Das vs Mannu Bibi And Anr. on 23 March, 1897
In the said Full Bench case Banerjee, J., relied also upon an earlier Full Bench decision in Brij Mohan Das v. Mannu Bibi [1897] 19 All. 848 in which had been held that Section 14., Lim. Act, applied to a case where a plaintiff had been prosecuting his suit in a wrong Court in consequence of a bona fide mistake of law.
Rakhal Chandra Dutta vs Purna Chandra Ghosh on 27 November, 1929
In Rakhal Chandra v. Ashutosh Ghosh [l913] 19 I.C. 931 Chatterjea, J., said:
Krishna Mohan Ghosh vs Surapati Banerjee And Ors. on 24 November, 1924
In the case of Krishna, Mohan v. Surapati Banerjee the plea of the appellant that he did not know that substitution of a deceased respondent was necessary was taken as a bona fide mistake.