Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Year: 1910 Page 1 of about 7 results (0.001 seconds)

Apr 15 1910 (PC)

Hari Charan Sarkar and ors. Vs. the District Judge of Dacca

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-15-1910

Reported in : 6Ind.Cas.327

..... it will not be entertained by a court of appeal or of revision. as stated in story on equity pleadings, section 280, the ground, on which the doctrine of multifariousness rests, is the inconvenience of mixing up in one proceeding several distinct matters having no necessary connection with each other, thus embarrassing the court as well as the defendants, such ..... with this objection, the court must look particularly to convenience in the administration of justice, and if this is accomplished by the mode of procedure adopted, the objection of multifariousness will not lie, unless the course pursued is so injurious to one party as to make it inequitable to accomplish the general convenience at his expense. the first question to ..... and the same witnesses exammed and cross- examined repeatedly, because the case against each person is conducted separately. the essence of the matter is to determine, when the objection of multifariousness is interposed, whether the court can accord f till and substantial relief to all parties, in interest without embarrassing the chances for defence. to put the matter in another way ..... be found in our reports, though the legality of orders under section 36 has been questioned on various grounds, no objection has apparently even been taken on the ground of multifariousness. the learned vakil for the petitioner has, however, suggested that although the objection now taken has never suggested itself to the profession before, it may, nevertheless, be well .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1910 (PC)

Kunwar Gobind Krishn NaraIn and anr. Vs. Musammat Sirjunnissa Begam

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-16-1910

Reported in : 6Ind.Cas.226

..... property part of which had passed into the hands of transferees. the transferors as well as the transferees were impleaded in the suit. it was contended that the suit was multifarious, that each defendant having disturbed plaintiff's possession as to a particular portion of the property independently of the other defendants, the plaintiff had a separate cause of action as ..... against each set of defendants and that the suit was bad for multifariousness. this contention was repelled, the court of which one of us was a member holding that the plaintiffs had only one cause of action, namely, the right on the death ..... claim in respect of it was abandoned and the suit proceeded as regards the bara banki property only. the contention in the case was that the suit was bad for multifariousness. this contention was repelled, it being held that there were not two causes of action one against the plaintiff's brother and the other against the transferees but a single ..... was contended that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action. it was held, reversing the decree of the district judge, that the suit was not bad for multifariousness, the plaintiff's cause of action being that there was only one cause of action, namely, the right of the plaintiffs as reversioners on the death of a previous owner .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 1910 (FN)

Herndon Vs. Chicago, R.i. and Pac. Ry. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-31-1910

..... we see no reason why the right to declare such forfeiture may not be considered with the case against the prosecuting attorney. we find no merit in the objection of multifariousness. as to the objection that the suit is one against the state, we think no discussion is necessary, and content ourselves with a reference to the late cases in this ..... . before considering these questions, we will notice some of the objections to the decree below made by the learned counsel for the state. it is asserted that the bill is multifarious, and that there is no right to join the defendants, the prosecuting attorney and secretary of state, in the page 218 u. s. 155 same bill. but no objection to ..... , 1910 decided may 31, 1910 218 u.s. 135 appeal from the circuit court of the united states for the western district of missouri syllabus objections to a bill for multifariousness and improper joinder of parties must be promptly made, and properly by special demurrer specifically directed to the objection, and so held that, in the absence of specific objection properly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1910 (PC)

Choragudi Venkatadri, Vs. Emperor

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-02-1910

Reported in : (1910)20MLJ220

..... substantive offence of falsification of accounts and cheating were charged with having abetted the commission of those offences. prima facie the trial is open to objection on the ground of multifariousness. it violates the express injunctions of the legislature prohibiting the trial of several offences covering a period of more than one year at one trial and the trial together of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 02 1910 (PC)

In Re: Parasea Collieries Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-02-1910

Reported in : (1910)ILR37Cal629

..... ; but this did not alter the character of the lease or the nature of the transaction. the view of the board would appear to be that 'the document is a multifarious document within the meaning and application of section 5 of the stamp act.' now, that section provides that 'any instrument comprising or relating to several distinct matters shall be chargeable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 1910 (PC)

Gajendra Nath Nandi Vs. Ganendra Kumar Nandi

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-07-1910

Reported in : 7Ind.Cas.804

..... will annexed granted by the district, judge'', and he accordingly held that the ordinary civil courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. he also held that the suit was multifarious because it united a claim for the removal of the administrator, cognizable only by the district judge, with a claim for accounts, cognizable by the ordinary civil courts.2. we .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 16 1910 (PC)

Hari Ballabh Rai and ors. Vs. Gopal Lal Singh

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-16-1910

Reported in : 6Ind.Cas.577a

..... hopelessly confused as to affect the merits of the decision on every issue.2. the learned munsif in the court of first instance decided that the suit was bad for multifarious ness, but gave the plaintiff a decree for rs. 20 which he found was the value of the moiety share in the two rooms of shyam ballabh which it appears .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //