Search results for ‘ plaintiff

Brajnandan Sinha Vs Jyoti Narain-08/11/1955

Contempt Of Courts Act, 1952—Section 3—Court—MEANING of—Courts subordinate to High Court—MEANING of—Court of a quasi judicial tribunal created under Statute is not covered by the EXPRESSION ‘court’.

The Concept of Possession: Why it needs to be protected

Possession is to be protected because a man by taking possession of an object has brought it within the sphere of his will. He has extended his personality into or over that object. As Hegel would have said, possession is the objective realization of free will. And by Kant’s postulate, the will of any individual thus manifested is entitled to absolute respect from every other individual, and can only be overcome or set aside by the universal will, that is, by the state, acting through its organs, the courts.

FRAUD, MALICE, AND INTENT—THE THEORY OF TORTS

But the philosophical analysis of every wrong begins by determining what the defendant has actually chosen, that is to say, what his voluntary act or conduct has been, and what consequences he has actually contemplated as flowing from them, and then goes on to determine what dangers attended either the conduct under the known circumstances, or its contemplated consequence under the contemplated circumstances.

TORTS—TRESPASS AND NEGLIGENCE

The distinction between the functions of court and jury does not come in question until the parties differ as to the standard of conduct. Negligence, like ownership, is a complex conception. Just as the latter imports the existence of certain facts, and also the consequence (protection against all the world) which the law attaches to those facts; the former imports the existence of certain facts (conduct) and also the consequence (liability) which the law attaches to those facts. In most cases the question is upon the facts, and it is only occasionally that one arises on the consequence.

United States Courts: M.L Gray

A court of common pleas, consisting of a competent number of judges, commissioned by the Governor, was required to be held in each of said districts, to hold pleas of assize, scire facias replevins, and hear and determine all manner of pleas, suits, actions and causes, civil, personal, real and mixed according to law.

Kale and others VS Deputy Director of Consolidation and others- 21/01/1976

FAMILY SETTLEMENT-the family settlement arrived at by the parties was oral, and the petition filed by them on August 7, 1956 before the Assistant Commissioner was merely an information of an already completed oral transaction. In other words, the petition was only an intimation to the Revenue court or authority that the matters in dispute between the parties had been settled amicably between the members of the family, and no longer required determination and that the mutation be effected in accordance with that antecedent family settlement. Since the petition did not itself create or declare any rights in immovable property of the value of Rupees 100 or upwards, it was not hit by Sec. 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, and as such was not compulsorily registrable.

Shiv Cotex Vs Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. and Others-30/08/2011

SECOND APPEAL-It is, open to the High Court to reframe substantial question of law or frame substantial question of law afresh or hold that No. substantial question of law is involved at the time of hearing the second appeal but reversal of the judgment and decree passed in appeal by a court subordinate to it in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code is impermissible without formulating substantial question of law and a decision on such question.

Dayanandi Vs Rukma D. Suvarna and Others-31/10/2011

Hindu Law—Partition—Partition suit decreed by High Court in favour of defendant-respondent reversing decree of Trial Court—Some manipulative alterations were made in Will giving an impression that before putting his left thumb mark, testator had consciously disinherited respondent—Execution of second Will was highly suspicious and not a voluntary act of testator—Appeal dismissed.

Satsang And Anr. vs Kiron Chandra Mukhopadhyay And Ors-18/07/2020

Copy right Act-Under the Copyright Act 1957 registration is not compulsory. There is no section in the Copyright Act 1957, to the effect that the author can have no right or remedy un-less the work is registered. Section 13 of the Copyright Act provides that copy-right shall subsist throughout India in certain classes of works which are enumerated in the section. Section 45 of the Act provides that the author or publisher of, or the owner of or other person interested in the copyright in any work may make an application in the prescribed form accompanied by the prescribed fee to the Registrar of Copyrights for entering particulars of the work in the Register of Copyrights. This section does not say that registration is compulsory.

M/s. Julien Educational Trust Vs Sourendra Kumar Roy and ors-02/12/2009

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 39, Rules 1 and 2—Injunction-Prima facie case made out by appellant-Trust as to agreement for sale, which has to go to trial—Whether there was a concluded contract or not between appellant-Trust and the respondents is a matter of evidence and can only be gone into during trial of suit—Interim order is required to be passed to maintain status quo of suit property—Prima facie case is in favour of appellant-Trust