LawCite Search |
LawCite Markup Tool |
Help |
Feedback
Law Cite |
Case Name | Citation(s) | Court | Jurisdiction | Date | Full Text † | Citation Index | |
[1931] Bom 263 |
|
India - Maharashtra | circa 1931 |
|
|||
[1939] Nag 398 |
|
India - Maharashtra | circa 1939 |
|
|||
173 IC 877 |
|
United Kingdom |
|
||||
Note, "Instalment decrees--Default--Proviso ' ' ments That decision was followed in AIR M B Bobde -- for Appellant |
|
India - Maharashtra | circa 1931 |
|
|||
Note "Not guilty 1' d order for sale irom the attachment Both go (b) Contract Act (1872), S 148 -- Bailment ^ together in this case, and the attachment explained , and the order for sale together formed the Where there is no obligation to return identical process in execution which was issued by subject-matter, either bailment form, there can be no in its original or in an altered [P 169/] the civil Court, though it was prohibited to T, J Kedar -- for Applicant do so by para 11, sch 3, Civil P C That M Adhikari -- for R being the basis of the sale held by the Col lector and the basis itself being invalid the Order --The applicant Gangaram has sale by the Collector held in consequence been convicted under S 409, Penal Code, and thereof must be held to be invalid In AIR sentenced to one year's rigorous imprison 1938 Rag 281,1 to which I was a party, it was ment and a fine of rs 800 Most of the facts laid down that attachment is not in itself an are not in dispute Gangaram is an adatiya independent process but is a part and parcel in the Wun cotton market Between 6th of the process of sale in execution I adhere* IDecember 1939 and 2nd April 1940 the com plainant Tukaram (p W l) delivered 13 carts 1 ('38) 25 | India - Maharashtra | circa 1938 |
|
||||
33 Bom LR 459 |
|
India - Maharashtra | circa 1938 |
|
|||
132 IC 437 |
|
United Kingdom | circa 1938 |
|