Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)Madras Steam Navigation Co. Ld. vs Shalimar Works, Ld. on 2 May, 1914
In the case of Madras Steam Navigation Co. Limited v. Shalimar Works Limited 28 Ind. Cas. 463 : 42 C. 85 at p. 108 there is an observation to the effect that the Article was applicable, but it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation. The observation, therefore, was not necessary for the purposes of the case.
Damaraju Narasimha Rau vs Thadinada Gangaram And Ors. on 18 August, 1908
98 : 31 M.L.J. 257, Ram Narain v. Umrao Singh 29 A. 615 : A.W.N. (1907) 194 : 4 A.L.J. 548, Damaraju Narasimha Rao v. Thadinada Gangaraju 31 M. 431 : 4 M.L.T. 271 : 18 M.L.J. 590 and Pandiri Veeramma v. Mandavili Subba Rao 35 Ind. Cas. 98 : 31 M.L.J. 257. In the last three cases, however, the plaintiff whose property was in question was a stranger to the proceeding in which the legal process was issued.
Pandiri Veeramma vs Mandavili Subba Rao And Ors. on 2 November, 1915
98 : 31 M.L.J. 257, Ram Narain v. Umrao Singh 29 A. 615 : A.W.N. (1907) 194 : 4 A.L.J. 548, Damaraju Narasimha Rao v. Thadinada Gangaraju 31 M. 431 : 4 M.L.T. 271 : 18 M.L.J. 590 and Pandiri Veeramma v. Mandavili Subba Rao 35 Ind. Cas. 98 : 31 M.L.J. 257. In the last three cases, however, the plaintiff whose property was in question was a stranger to the proceeding in which the legal process was issued.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Manavikraman vs Avisilan Koya on 5 November, 1895
4. In the present case the writ was issued by the Court and prima facie it was not a wrongful seizure. The writ was not without jurisdiction as the Court had jurisdiction over the subject-matter : nor was the writ executed against a person who was no party to the decree, nor with respect to goods outside the scope of the writ. In these circumstances, we think that Article 29 is inapplicable to the case. This view is supported by the cases of Manavikraman v. Arisilan Koya 19 M. 80 : 6 M.L.J. 11 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.)
M.R.M.V.L. Firm Of Madura Represented ... vs P.S. Krishnaswami Ayyar on 16 December, 1919
761 and Sokkalinga Chetty v. Krishnaswami Ayyar 55 Ind. Cas. 786 : (1920) M.W.N. 192 at p. 195 : 11 L.W. 479 : 38 M.L.J. 324 : 27 M.L.T. 259.
1