Skip to content

Privy Council Cases

Appeals from Indian courts heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and House of Lords - filter by originating court or search by party, citation, or keyword above.

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.

Results · Mumbai

Apr 05 1876 (PC)

Parapa BIn Shivapa Vs. Raghapa BIn Hanmapa

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom217

Michael Westropp, C.J.1. There were issues settled in this cause in the presence of the defendant's pleader, who, moreover, was permitted to cross-examine and did cross-examine the witnesses. Hence there is no ground for maintaining that the decree of the Subordinate Judge was ex parte. We reverse the decree of the District Judge, and direct him to proceed to hear the appeal on the merits. Costs of the special appeal to abide the result....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 1876 (PC)

Reg Vs. Shivya Son of Bhagowa and Three ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom219

Melvill, J.1. In this case it is admitted that if the so-called confessions of three of the prisoners be excluded from consideration, the convictions cannot be sustained. In fact, there is no other evidence of the smallest value in the case. These confessions were recorded by a Magistrate of the 3rd Class under Section 122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They are signed by the prisoners, and the Magistrate has made on them the memorandum required by Section 122, certifying his belief that the confessions were voluntarily made. Several objections have been taken to the admission of these confessions, but the only one which requires serious consideration is the following. Section 122 requires that confessions recorded under that section shall be taken in the manner prescribed in Sections 345 and 346. One of the provisions of Section 346 is that the Magistrate shall certify under his own hand that the examination was taken in his presence and in his hearing, and contains accurately the...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 1876 (PC)

Reg Vs. Rama Bhivgowda

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom223

1. The Court consider that the combined sentence passed under Section 314 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in a case of simultaneous convictions for several offences, must be considered a single sentence for the purpose of confirmation or appeal. The sentence of nine years' rigorous imprisonment in the present case, therefore, requires confirmation by the Sessions Judge (section 18). The proceedings are accordingly forwarded to the Sessions Judge for his order. Should he confirm the sentence wholly or in part, he should return the proceedings to this Court, in order that the appeal may be disposed of....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1876 (PC)

Lallubhai Bapubhai Kandas Mulchand Ramdas Jagmohandas and Manikji Dhan ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom388

Michael Westropp, C.J.1. Mulji Nandlal, a Hindu of the Vania caste, died, on the 5th of January 1840, possessed of considerable moveable and immoveable property. The latter, with the single exception of a house and premises situate at Jambusir, in Guzerat, lay in the island of Bombay. He left no male issue, but his widow Sarasvatibai and his daughter Jethibai (called, in his will, Ben Jiethi) survived him. By that will, which was written in the Guzerathi language and character, and was dated the 2nd of January 1840, he appointed Gangadas Vizibhukandas and Trikamlal Avechuldas his executors. More translations than one of it have been put in evidence. We take the best of these translations as our guide to the contents of the will, namely, that made by our present chief translator, Mr. Flynn, on the 2nd September 1874. The appointment of Gangadas Vizbhukandas and Trikamlal Avechuldas as executors was made thus:2. 'To Shah Gangadas Vizbhukandas and Shah Trikamlal Avechuldas. Written by Sha...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 1876 (PC)

Maniklal Atmaram Vs. Manohershi Dinsha Coachman

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom269

Green, J.1. The first question is, having regard to the construction to be put on the will of Bhugwan Kulla, and the events that have happened, what is the position and what are the rights of the plaintiff? As to the construction to be put on the will, it is to be observed, in the first place, that there does not appear to be any general disposition of the testator's property unless such general disposition be contained in the 1st and 11th clauses. The executors named as such in the will have various powers given to them by the will, but I do not find any gift to them of the estate. Taking the 1st clause alone, there would, in my opinion, be a gift of the whole estate to the widow, subject, of course, to the legacies, and devises, pecuniary and specific, contained in the will, and subject to the performance of the purposes and objects declared in the will. But the 2nd clause, in conjunction with the 11th clause, shows, in my opinion, that the testator did not intend that his wife shoul...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 14 1876 (PC)

Veribhai and anr. Vs. Raghabhai and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom225

Melvill, J.1. We are of opinion that there is nothing in Bombay Act V of 1862 which debars a Civil Court from making a decree for the partition of Narvadari land among the Narvadars. It is possible that the revenue authorities might object to execute such a decree, but the plaintiffs inform the Court that they do not anticipate such objection, and they are content to take a decree for partition. They have proved their right to four and a half out of the five shares held by themselves and the defendants, and also to the mesne profits claimed by them, and we, therefore, amend the decree of the Court below, and award the plaintiffs' claim in full, with all costs on the defendants throughout....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 14 1876 (PC)

Reg Vs. Hanmant Gavda

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom228

Melvill, J.1. Assuming that there is evidence on the record to prove that the cotton was found in a room occupied jointly by the prisoner and his mother, and assuming that this fact is sufficient to constitute possession by the prisoner, we still think that such possession, even though accompanied by a knowledge that the cotton was adulterated, would not be sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Magistrate says: 'There is, it is true, no direct evidence as to the appellant having personally adulterated, or caused to be adulterated, the cotton in question (that the cotton is adulterated by an admixture of dirt and seed is not even denied by appellant); and, in fact, it would be simply unreasonable to expect that the Cotton Department should bring forward actual eye-witnesses of the ginning and packing of cotton which may be seized by the Department; but under ordinary circumstances, when cotton in considerable quantities is found in dokras in a man's possession, and such cotton is foun...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 19 1876 (PC)

Kalova Kom Bhujangrav Vs. Padapa Valad Bhujangrav

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom248

Michael Westropp, C.J.1. Independently of any claim which the plaintiff may now have, or may, by lapse of time, have lost, to the property of the deceased Bhujangrav, we think that he is within time to maintain against Balapa this suit to set aside his adoption, which took place in 1872, the year in which this suit was instituted; Clause 16 of Section 1 of Act XIV of 1859 being the enactment applicable to such a case previously to the coming into force of Act IX of 1871, Schedule II, Article 129, as decided by the High Court of Calcutta in Mrinmoyee Dabea v. Bhoobunmoyee Dabea (15 Beng. L.R. 1, S.C., 23 Cal. W.R. 42 Civ. Rul.). It has been argued that, inasmuch as the fact, that the plaintiff is the son of Bhujangrav, was, with regard to immoveable property, disputed in the Christian year 1849 before the Collector, this suit must be regarded as barred by lapse of time; but this is not a suit to recover the immoveable property, and we do not intend to decide in it whether or not the pla...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 26 1876 (PC)

Shepherd Vs. the Trustees of the Port of Bombay

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom477

Green, J.1. The first issue raises the question whether the words used in the resolution of 10th February, and in effect reiterated in that of 17th February, amount to a libel, i.e., apart from the question whether there be foundation in fact for so using such words, and apart from the question of the occasion and circumstances of publication, whether it is, in law, a libel to write and publish of another, and in particular of a contractor for the conveyance by steamers of goods and passengers, 'Mr. Shepherd's offer of Rs. 520 in full of all claims should be accepted, but any further transactions with him should be avoided, if possible.' I cannot doubt that it is. No doubt, when the whole turn of the phrase in question, in the present case, is considered, taking it in connection with the introductory part of the resolution (which also was published), it may not be a libel of the more serious character. But I am of opinion that such words, even taking them in connection with what preced...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 1876 (PC)

Abba Haji Ishmail Vs. Abba Thara

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom253

Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The defendant is right. There is no appeal from that order, but we do not in the least degree sympathize with him in his struggle to deprive his attorney of his costs. I may also add that we are of opinion that Mr. Justice Bayley's order was perfectly right....

Tag this Judgment!

  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial