Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (1.19 seconds)Srimantu Raja Yarlagadda Durga Prasada ... vs Srimantu Raja Yarlagadda Mallikarjuna ... on 21 January, 1901
252 the application of a transferee from the plaintiff to be added as a party was refused, As the refusal was a determination of the proceeding so far as he was concerned, it seems to ma he was rightly held entitled to appeal The decision in Srimantu Raja Yarlagadda Durga Prasada Nayadu v. Srimantu Raja Yarlaqadda Millikarjuna, Prasada Nayadu (1901) I.L.R. 21 Mad.
T.R.M. Arunachellam Chetti vs V.R.R.M.A.R. Arunachellam Chetti And ... on 29 September, 1891
In R. v. R. (1891) I.L.R. 14 Mad. 88 the order of adjournment was certainly not appealable, But an appeal lay as regards the application to vary the rate of alimony and though the definition of judgment there was certainly open to exception the order of adjournment itself was not varied in appeal.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Hem Chunder Chowdhry vs Bissessuri Debi Chowdhrain on 6 August, 1886
531, Hurrish Chunder Chowdhry v. Kalisundary Debi (1883) I.L.R. 9 Calc.
THE ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL’S ACT, 1913
Kishen Pershad Panday vs Tiluckdhari Lall And Ors. on 15 August, 1890
455 and Kishen Pershad Panday v. Tiluckihari Lall (1891) I.L.R. 18 Calc. 182 which are cases of leave to appeal to the Privy Council dealt with on special ground?, appear to be in accord with the principles I have endeavoured to formulate.
Mohabir Prosad Singh And Ors. vs Adhikari Kunwar And Ors. on 2 February, 1894
The Calcutta case Mohabir Prosad Singh v. Adhikari Kunwar (1894) I.L.R. 21 Calc.
The Commercial Bank Of India (Limited) vs Sabju Saheb And Ors. on 31 October, 1900
In Commercial Bunk of India, Limited v. Sabju Saheb (1901) I.L.R. 24 Mad.
Virabadran Chetty And Ors. vs Nataraja Desikar on 22 July, 1904
11. With all respect I find myself unable to agree with the decisions in Veerabadran Chetty v. Nataraja Desikar (1905) I.L.R. 28 Mad.