The Calcutta Weekly Notes. Monday December 18 1933

It would therefore appear that the dates for the next vacation will not only cause the inconveniencem we have metioned but they are also opposed to the rules of the Court inasmuch as the opening and the closing dates will be different from what are suggested in the rules and inasmuch as all the festivals will not be covered by the vacation. [...] The announcement made by H. E. the Viceroy at a State bunquet at Hyderabad on the 80th of November last regarding the future position of the Berars in relation to Nizam's State and British India seems to have created an impression in the public mind that some very material changes are to be made in the present administration of the Berars. [...] We note that the sovereignty of the Nizam over the Berars is to continue alagfore but that under the settlement arrived at no changes dre to take place in the prsent and future administration of the Berars as jointly administered along with the Cetral Provinces and that under the proposed Federal Scheme they are to continue to be administered together as a Federal Province under the name [...] After defraying the expenses of the Hyderabad contingent which were 25 lakhs the balance of the revenue was to be accounted for and paid by the British Government to the Nizam. [...] (ii) That as at the time the contract was entered into the Plaintiff was a niinor there was no mutuality and therefore the Plaintiff could not claim specific performance of the contract even though the contract might have been for the benefit of the minor.