Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.23 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 292 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Manubhai Chunilal vs The General Accident Fire And Life ... on 23 March, 1936
3. So long as that decision stands, the findings on the issues raised by the defendants must be against them. The defendants, however, do not abandon their submissions. The defendants in the suit decided in Manubhai Chunilal's case applied for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, but leave was refused by the Appeal Court on the ground that no leave to the Privy Council could be obtained at that stage. An application to the Privy Council for special leave to appeal was also rejected by the Privy Council on the same ground. The question, however, is to be taken up to the Privy Council and the defendants, therefore, desire to keep their submissions on these two questions alive.
Maung Bya vs Maung Kyi Neo on 30 June, 1925
. the full amount recoverable in respect of any breach thereof." These sentences do not in the least support the view that a fresh cause of action arises and that therefore the condition of the bond is not broken for the purposes of the Indian Limitation Act until the date of the assignment. The judgments of the appellate Court of Rangoon in Maung San U. v. Maung Kyaw Mye (1923) I.L.R. 1 Ran. 463 and of Blackwell J. in Manubhai's caseVide 38 Bom. L.R. 632, at p. 634. are in the opinion of their Lordships correct and the decision of the Appellate Court in the latter case must be taken to be erroneous.