Privy Council Cases
Colonial & appellate judgments
Browse Privy Council & House of Lords decisions
Search appeals from Indian High Courts decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and related appellate benches - foundational authority for constitutional and commercial law.
Colonial & appellate
Results · Karnataka
A.A. Khan and ors. Vs. Ameer Khan and ors.
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant11; AIR1950Mys11
ORDER1. This is an application under Order 41, Rule 5, Civil P.C. The point for consideration is wether pending R.A. 64 of 49-50, the execution of the decree of the lower Court has to be stayed on appellants furnishing security.2. The lower Court has passed a decree for payment of Rs. 12,000 claimed to have been contributed by the plaintiffs towards their share of capital of a partnership concern for the dissolution of which the suit was filed and has passed also a preliminary decree for dissolution of partnership with a direction that accounts should be taken for ascertaining the income of the partnership concern. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that even if the plaintiffs have contributed Rs. 12,000 towards capital to the partnership concern there can be no decree for any amount at this stage, i.e. before accounts are taken. What is due to the plaintiffs or by them can only be ascertained after going through the accounts and in case there was a loss as contended by appell...
Tag this Judgment!D. Ramachandriah Vs. Government of Mysore
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant10; AIR1950Mys10
ORDER1. In C.C. No. 23 of 1948-49 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate, Tumkur, the petitioner along with four others was prosecuted for having contravened Rule 81 (2) read with Rule 121, Defence of India Rules and also the Notification No. F.F. 169 dated 4th October 1948 issued by the District Magistrate, Tumkur District, on the ground that a certain quantity of rice without a permit was being transported from Tumkur to Bangalore. Accused 1 was the driver of the lorry, and accused 2 and 3 were the servants seated in the lorry, at the time the lorry was stopped the luggage was checked and seized on the way between Tumkur and Bangalore, Accused 4 was alleged to be the person who despatched the rice from Tumkur, and the petitioner was accused 5 said to be the owner of the lorry. The learned Magistrate acquitted accused 4 giving him the benefit of doubt but convicted all the rest. Accused 1 to 3 have not challenged the conviction, but the petitioner contends that on the facts...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›