The Calcutta Law Journal - Reports of Cases Decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeals from India and by the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal July to December 1926

v. Najuma Lli Sheikh r90 Kamini Mayi Debi Srimati v. Bhusa i Chan Ira Gho.ie 40 Ketabuldin Sheikh V. Nafar Chandra Pattok 582 Khetra Mohun Ghosh v. Lakhi Kanta Pal 271 Maharaj Bahadur Singh of I3aluchar v. Raja Bhupeidra Narayan Singh r82 Mahim Chandra Guha v. Naba Chandra Chowdhury 288 Mansurali Sarkar v. Jamiran Bewa TOT Mrigedra Nath Bir v. Dibakar Bir 1.65 Nanda Kumar Da.; v. Emial Al [...] Azimaddy v. Emperor 253 Basanta Kumar Gossain v. Emperor 317 Bharat Patra v. '['he King Emperor 235 Hulas Chand Baid v. Emperor 216 Mamat All v. Emperor 233 P. K. Chakrabartty v. King-Emperor 172 Tarap Ali v. King-Emperor 239 CRIMINAL REVISION. [...] Mandal v Emperor 170 Ram Chandra Acharjee v. Aditya Chandra Pal 307 Ram 1)as Singh V. Emperor 25o Rama Nath Basu Chowdhury v Sarnia Prosad Basu Chodhur) 214 Rasul Khan v. Emperor 2o5 Satish Chandra Bose v. The Corporation of Calcutta 37 Shahabuddin Ahmel v. Abdul Kader 2 I CRIMINAL REFERENCE Collector of Howrah The v. Sa!ltok s 593 Emperor v. Chandra Kumar De 230 Subal Chandra Namad [...] Ramchandra v. t. N. S. Ramchandra (1922) 35 C. L. J. 545 ; L. R. 49 I. Ai 129 Tecka Dharee Singh v. Mohur Singh (18(7) 7. W. R. 26o The Government of Bengal v. Muchu Khan (1924) 20 C. W. N. 652... [...] The fact that the land could never have been made available as a mill site owing to the proximity of the Gun and Shell Factory does not disentitle the pesons affected by the declarati in from claiming compensation on the basis that but for the existence of the Gun and Shell Factory the site might have been diposed of as a mill site unless possibly it can be shown that they purchased the land