Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.49 seconds)
Mathurabai And Anr. vs Ramkrishna Bhaskar Barve And Ors. on 25 November, 1959 cites

Midnapore Zemindary Co. vs Naresh Narain Roy on 25 February, 1927

15. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, however, thought that this judgment operated as res judicata because in his opinion if a point is raised in the pleadings and the parties have joined issue thereon, a decision on it operates as res judicata between the parties even though the point was not properly raised, and he reierred to the decisions in Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Narayan Roy ILK 51 Cal 631 : AIR 1924 PC 144, Krishna Chendra v. Challa Ramanna and Probhudayal v. Chhotelal . In ILR 51 Cal. 631 : AIR 1924 PC 144 their Lordships of the Privy Council agreed with the following observations on the question of res judicata made by Sir John George Woodroffe and Walmsley JJ-:
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Krishna Chandra Gajapati vs Challa Ramanna on 7 December, 1931

15. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, however, thought that this judgment operated as res judicata because in his opinion if a point is raised in the pleadings and the parties have joined issue thereon, a decision on it operates as res judicata between the parties even though the point was not properly raised, and he reierred to the decisions in Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Narayan Roy ILK 51 Cal 631 : AIR 1924 PC 144, Krishna Chendra v. Challa Ramanna and Probhudayal v. Chhotelal . In ILR 51 Cal. 631 : AIR 1924 PC 144 their Lordships of the Privy Council agreed with the following observations on the question of res judicata made by Sir John George Woodroffe and Walmsley JJ-:
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 Next