Posted On by &filed under Bombay High Court, High Court.

Bombay High Court
Baijnath Prasad Singh vs Kedar Nath Goenka on 15 November, 1927
Equivalent citations: (1928) 30 BOMLR 115
Author: V Sumner
Bench: Sumner, Atkinson, Wallis, L Sanderson


Viscount Sumner, J.

1. Their Lordships are indebted to counsel for having at the outset explained the difficulties that lie in the way of the appellant in bringing this appeal to a conclusion satisfactory to himself. In their Lordships’ opinion the first part of the case is completely covered by the recent decision of their Lordships’ Board in the case of Protap Chandra Deo v. Jagadish Chandra Deo (1927) L.R. 54 I.A. 289, s.c. 29 Bom. L.R. 1136, and, as to the second part, it relates to concurrent findings of the Courts in India on questions of fact, and their Lordships are therefore unable to entertain it.

2. Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed with costs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.173 seconds.