Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

    Majju v. Lachman Prasad

    Ryves, J.:— In my opinion the judgment of my learned brother was correct and I would dismiss the appeal.

    Dalal, J.:— I agree.

    Walsh, A.C.J:— I should like to say that the matter of law raised by the appeal has been very fully argued by Mr. Haidar in a very interesting discussion. I merely want to add my reason for constituting the Bench as I did in this case, because Mr. Haidar raised a sort of indefinite protest against it. In this case, and in the next one which we are about to hear, it seemed to me, when I happened to be acting as Chief Justice and was looking into my duty as regards the constitution of the Bench, that these two cases were of a somewhat exceptional character, and that in this case, in particular, it was desirable, having regard to the Full Bench which Has Been referred to and the fact that I was a member of that Full Bench, to have a decision of three Judges. I remain of the same opinion after hearing Mr. Haidar's interesting argument.

    By the Court.— The order of the Court is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.

    Appeal dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Majju v. Lachman Prasad
    (Apr 25, 1924)