Privy Council Court April 1935 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sri Raja Vasireddi Sri Chandra Mou-leswara Prasada Bahadur Vs. Secy, o ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-16-1935
Sir Shadi Lal: This is a consolidated appeal from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court at Madras dated 1st February 1929, which reversed the judgments and decrees of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Bezwada and dismissed two suits brought by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who has preferred this appeal, is the zamindar of a permanently settled estate called Chintalapatu Vantu (also known as Mulrtyala), which is situate in the Kistna District of the Madras Presidency. The circumstances, which led to the institution of the suits, may be shortly stated. The remuneration of the village officers employed in the permanently settled estates and certain other estates within the Presidency of Madras consisted of grants of lands or assignments of revenue payable in respect of lands. This mode of remunerating the services of village officers, which was sanctioned by ancient practice, continued in force for more than a century; but it was subsequently found to be objectionable. The Gove...
Hari Vs. Emperor
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-12-1935
Lord Atkin: This is an appeal in a criminal case which has undergone some vicissitudes in the Courts in India. The appellant, with six other persons, was tried at Karachi and was convicted of murder. The accused were tried before the Additional Judicial Commissioner of Sind, Mr. Dadiba Mehta, and a special jury of nine jurors. After a trial lasting five weeks six of the accused were convicted on different parts of the charges and sentenced. The seventh was acquitted. The convicted men then appealed to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner and the appellant appeals by special leave to His Majesty in Council. On this appeal questions have arisen which it is not necessary finally to settle, as to the precise position of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Sind in its criminal jurisdiction and in respect of its appellate jurisdiction. The material sections are the sections of the Bombay Act No.12 of 1866 as amended, which provides, by S. 1: There shall be for the Province of Sind a ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›