Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Year: 1952 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.001 seconds)

May 05 1952 (HC)

Madhosingh and anr. Vs. Jaitpalsingh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-05-1952

Reported in : AIR1954Raj46

..... 23-7-1946, in the court of the judicial superintendent, malanee. the suit included two distinct claims based on two separate causes of action. there was an objection as to multifarious-ness. thereupon the court ordered in may 1947 that the plaint should be amended, and allowed 14 days' time to do so.3. in july 1947, the appellants filed two ..... court.this argument is, in my opinion, untenable. it is true that the court did pass an order to the effect that the suit, as originally filed, was bad for multifariousness, and gave an opportunity to the appellants to amend the suit. it was open to them not to amend the original plaint, in which case, it would have been dismissed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 1952 (HC)

Sm. Nagendra Bala Debi and ors. Vs. Provash Chandra and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jan-29-1952

Reported in : AIR1953Cal185,57CWN97

..... possible to give effect to mr. banerji's contention and, in our view, the learned subordinate judge was right in deciding the issue of multifariousness against the plaintiffs.9. there is, however, one matter which requires to be noticed at this stage. the learned subordinate judge gave the plaintiffs ..... before and the relevant discussion in --'anukul chandra v. province of bengal', 51 cal wn 295, above cited, where the defence plea of multifariousness was upheld.8. in the present case, the defaults were separate and made by separate individuals in respect of different separate accounts. the payments ..... involved in the case, were both satisfied and the present suit was protected by the said provisions against any challenge on the ground of defect of multifariousness. mr. banerji in this connection drew our attention to three decisions of this court reported in --'ramendra nath v. brojendra nath', 45 cal ..... , therefore, did not decide -- any of the said other issues in the case. having regard to his finding that the suit was bad for multifariousness, the suit was dismissed by the learned subordinate judge and against that decision the present appeal has been taken by the plaintiffs.5. on behalf of ..... of the payments alleged to have been made by them.4. the learned subordinate judge came to the conclusion that the suit was bad for multifariousness and, although he made certain observations with regard to the other issues arising on the facts of this particular case, he did not, as already .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1952 (HC)

Thirumaleshwara Bhatta Being Minor by Next Friend Shanker Bhatta Vs. K ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-24-1952

Reported in : AIR1953Mad132; (1952)1MLJ716

..... on 9-8-1943. sankamma, the paternal grandmother of shankari died after the disposal of the first appeal on 20th may 1949.5. it is unnecessary to re-set the multifarious controversies between the parties set out in the judgments of the lower courts because the contest has resolved itself now into a single question of fact and law regarding the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 1952 (HC)

The State Vs. Somnath Mahpatra, Secretary to the Govt. of Orissa

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Sep-10-1952

Reported in : AIR1953Ori33; 19(1953)CLT58

..... report : 'in the administration of government in this country, the functions which are given to ministers (and constitutionally properly given to ministers, because they are constitutionally responsible) are functions so multifarious that no minister could ever personally attend to them. to make the example of the present case, no doubt there have been thousands of requisitions in this country by individual .....

Tag this Judgment!

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