facts are made by both the courts
below, this Court cannot interfere with such findings of facts
in the Second Appeal.
10. Therefore, as rightly ... when it is a
case of tortious liability. There is absolutely nothing to
RSA.416/2010
: 10 :
interfere with the quantification made by the lower
facts are made by both the courts
below, this Court cannot interfere with such findings of facts
in the Second Appeal.
10. Therefore, as rightly ... when it is a
case of tortious liability. There is absolutely nothing to
RSA.416/2010
: 10 :
interfere with the quantification made by the lower
legally correct and I find no reason to interfere
with the reasoning that in a tortious liability the question as to
who was the aggressor ... plaintiffs/respondents.
RSA No.1189/2017 5
I find no reason to interfere with the findings. There is no
substantial question of law arising
ghtest interference with the body or use of force to compel the furnishing of even non-commu- P '
nicative material requires a statutory authority ... absence of which such action would
prima facie attract tortious liability. Once this aspect is borne in mind, the need for clear
and speciļ¬c statutory
Ghisalal Durga Dutta vs Bina Das And Ors. on 1 January, 1800
Equivalent citations: I
Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited vs Anchor Health & Beauty Care Private Ltd
Author: V. Ramasubramanian
Indian Succession Act, 1925
LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA
ONE HUNDRED AND TENTH REPORT
ON
THE
Ms.Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini vs Mr.K.Natarajan
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N
Recognition Of Foreign Divorce
LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA
PLD-92.LXV
2,000
SIXTY- FIFTH
Married Womens Property Act,1874
PLD-92.LXVI
2,000
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF
