Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)
Nune Ayyannamma vs Valloori Ramaswami on 11 February, 1927 cites

Amar Chand Chamaria vs Banwari Lall Rakshit And Ors. on 24 November, 1921

The most recent decision of this Court is a decision by a single Judge in S. A. No. 882 of 1925 where also the prior decisions of this Court have been followed in preference to the view expressed in Amar Chand Chamaria v. Banwari Lall Rakshit (1921) ILR 49 C 608. In the present state of authorities we are asked by the learned vakil for the appellant to accept the decisions of the Calcutta High Court as laying down the correct law.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Ghulam Khan vs Muhammad Hassan on 3 December, 1901

He has also drawn our attention to the Privy Council decision in Ghulam Khan v. Muhammad Hassan (1901) ILR 29 C 167 : 12 MLJ 77 (PC) which he strongly relies upon in support of the Calcutta view. In the view that we take of this question it is not necessary to discuss the appellant's arguments in detail. We will only say that the arguments based on the Calcutta decisions are not without force, having regard to Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code; but the contrary view has been consistently held by this Court in various cases as pointed out above. The question is essentially one relating to procedure. Our Court has taken a definite position with regard to this matter and it has been followed for a considerable number of years. We think that this long-standing practice should not be disturbed. In these circumstances we are not prepared to depart from the procedure accepted all along as correct by our Court or to refer the matter to a Full Bench.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 74 - Full Document

Shavakshaw D. Davar vs Tyab Haji Ayub on 17 January, 1916

This decision overruling a prior decision of the same Court reported in Shavakshaw v. Tyab Haji Ayab (1916) ILR 40 B 386 held that an award could not be regarded as invalid merely because it was made in a reference by parties to the suit without the intervention of the Court and that when the award was brought to its notice the Court should try the issue whether it is not binding on the parties under the general principle of the law of contract by proceeding under Order 23, Rule 3. The Calcutta High Court has expressly dissented from this view.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1