cover image: The Calcutta Weekly Notes. Monday  November 20  1933

Premium

20.500.12592/ndc794

The Calcutta Weekly Notes. Monday November 20 1933

1933

This is clear from the concluding words of the judgment at p. 175 of the Report: "Therefore both as to the objection to the non-description. and that there was no proof that any special injury was occsioned their Lordships think that the judment of the High Court was wrong and that it must be reversed." In the present case objection was taken before the sale as to the* proposed v [...] The book rappears after twenty-seven years and as the editors had the advantage of coming after several valuable editions of the Code pulished during the interval; it might well be expected that theirs would combine the merits of all while retaining the distinctive features of the author's original work. [...] The second appeal was dismissed on the ground that the Court had jurisdiction to grant the review and the appeal was not maintainable under the Civil Procedure Code against the order granting a review. [...] The lower Court held that time ran from July 1926 the date of the amended decree and the date of the decision in the appeal in October 1928 did not give a fresh starting point of limitation on the ground (1) that the appeal was not from the decree sought to be executed (2) that the appeal was not competent for the reasons given in the judment of the High Court and (3) that the apeal was [...] The suit was dismissed on the ground that it was barred because the acnowledgment of the part payment was made more than three years from the date of the promissory note: Held (BEAUMONT C. J. and BAKER J.) —That the payment has to be made within the prescribed period but the Act does not provide that the acknowledgment is to be made within that period.
law
Pages
4
Published in
India
SARF Document ID
sarf.100104
Segment Pages Author Actions
The Calcutta Weekly Notes. Monday November 20 1933
v-viii unknown view

Related Topics

All