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
Latest Privy Council judgments
Gunga Ram and anr. Vs. Sujan Singh
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal337
R. Couch, J.1. The suit in this appeal was brought by Hurdial Singh, who has since died and is now represented by the respondents, against Makhan Singh and the appellant Sujan Singh, to recover a sum of money which the plaintiff said he had paid as surety, and was entitled to recover from them.2. Makhan Singh is since dead, and his representative has not joined in the appeal. Sujan Singh is the son and representative of Nand Singh, who died before the suit.3. The circumstances under which the plaintiff became surety are, that, on the 12th of November 1869, Nand Singh and Makhan Singh, through their agent Gormukh Singh, entered into a contract with the Political Agent of the State of Bahawalpur to supply timber, the contract being that the timber should be supplied clear and without knots; that, on its arrival at Multan, it was to be examined there by a mistree appointed by the Political Agent, and after inspection was to be forwarded to Bahawalpur; that, though the timber should be for...
Tag this Judgment!Padmakumari Debi Chowdhrani and anr. Vs. the Court of Wards (Represent ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal302
R. Couch, J.1. The suit in this case was brought by Jaikishor Surma Chowdhry against Ramkishor Acharjia Chowdhry and Gogunchandra Chowdhry, for the possession of certain zamindaries, taluks, and other properties mentioned in the schedules to the plaint, which formerly belonged to Bhowanikishor Acharjia Chowdhry, who died without issue on the 28th of August 1840, leaving a widow Bhoobunmoyee. Jaikishor having died during the suit, his widow, the first appellant, was made a party to it in his place.2. The property in dispute originally belonged to Gourkishor, who died in 1821, leaving Bhowanikishor, his only son, and a widow, Chandraboli, the mother of Bhowani. Chandraboli was the daughter of Krishnanath and granddaughter of Ramchandra Chowdhry. The plaintiff, Jaikishor, was the great-grandson of Ramchandra, and he claimed to succeed as the heir of Bhowanikishor on the death of Chandraboli, who had succeeded to the estates on the death of Bhoobunmoyee in 1867, and died in April 1870.3. I...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnama Chari Vs. Gangarau Reddi
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad229
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. It appears that the defendant has not paid rent to plaintiff's predecessors in title and to the other Shrotri yamdars separately in respect of the interest of each in the Shrotriyam, nor does it appear that the Shrotriyamdars have agreed among themselves to receive the melvaram separately. We think that the several Shrotriyamdars constitute one single landholder, and one of them is not entitled under the circumstances to enforce acceptance of a separate patta....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Giridhari Mondul and anr., Vs. Uchit Jha
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal435
Field, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows: On the morning of the 25th May last, Mr. Pratt, the Joint Magistrate of Purneah, was riding along in a portion of the district, when one Chumroo Mondul came to him, and complained that a dacoity had been committed on the previous night in the house of his brother, Giridhari Mondul. Mr. Pratt immediately proceeded to the spot, and made, what we must assume to be, a preliminary enquiry under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or what is commonly called a local investigation, conducted, not in his judicial capacity as Joint Magistrate, but in his administrative or executive capacity as a Police-officer. To this conclusion we are led by several facts. In the first place, there is no record of the examination of witnesses taken down in the manner directed by the Code of Criminal Procedure for proceedings of a judicial nature. In the second place, Mr. Pratt did not proceed to dispose definitively of the case of ...
Tag this Judgment!SumbhudIn Pattuck Vs. Lutful Huq
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal248
Morris, J.1. We affirm the order of the lower Court allowing execution to proceed, though upon grounds different from those on which the Judge bases his order. The facts of the case are as follow: A decree was passed on the 7th February 1876. The decree-holder applied for execution on the 31st May following. On the 15th November of that year, the judgment-debtor made an application to revive the suit, on the ground that he had no notice of it. This application was rejected on the 15th November 1876, and an appeal by the judgment-debtor against this order was dismissed on the 19th December 1877. But previously to this, that is, upon the entertainment of the application to revive the suit, the Court directed the execution-proceedings to be stayed; and on the 21st of February 1877,--that is, before the final order on appeal, on the application to revive the suit, was passed,--the Court, of its own motion, struck the execution-case off its file. It thus happens that the judgment-creditor d...
Tag this Judgment!Gisborne and Co. Vs. Subal Bowri
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal284
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I am of opinion that the instrument in question is not a bond within the meaning of the Stamp Act of 1869; and that it requires (so far as I can see) an eight-anna stamp only.2. The definition of a bond in Section 5 of the Act is precisely what we understand by a bond in England, and it is an obligation of a different character from a covenant to do a particular act, the breach of which must be compensated in damages.3. Whether a penal clause is attached to such a covenant or not, the remedy for the breach of it is in form and substance a suit for damages; and by Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, the English rule with regard to liquidated damages is abolished, and the plaintiff in such a suit has no right under any circumstances to claim the penalty itself as such. He can only recover such compensation, not exceeding the amount of the penalty, as the Judge at the trial considers reasonable; but he is entitled to that compensation, whether he proves any actual...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Krishen Poddar Vs. Raghoo Nath Shaha and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal287
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case, I think that the Munsif has taken a correct view of both points.2. The notice-clause in Section 21 of Act XI of 1865 appears to me to be applicable only to those cases where a new trial cannot be applied for within seven days after the judgment, in consequence of there being no sitting of the Court. Where the application itself is made within seven days, the notice appears quite unnecessary. Then again, if the grounds upon which the new trial is moved are proper grounds for granting a review, I agree with the Munsif that the plaintiff has a right to apply under Section 623 of the Civil Procedure Code without resorting to the Act of 1865. In that case no notice would be required....
Tag this Judgment!Boshoon Lall Sookul Vs. Chunder Doss and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal251
Morris, J.1. What has occurred in this case is, that the District Judge, after admitting the appeal, which was long out of time, sent the appeal for decision to the Subordinate Judge. On the hearing of the appeal, after hearing both sides in the matter, the Subordinate Judge threw out the appeal on the ground that it was inadmissible. It is contended before us in special appeal, on the authority of the case of Jhotee Sahoo v. Omesh Chunder Sircar I.L.R. 5 Calc. 1 that the Subordinate Judge could not override the order of the District Judge admitting the appeal, and that he had only jurisdiction to hear the appeal on its merits. We have referred to the original order passed by the Judge. He does not in express words say that the appeal is admitted. He only says that it is 'admissible.' A doubt arises whether, by this order, the Judge did not intend that the appeal should be entertained subject to hearing objections to its admissibility when both sides were before the Court. However, ass...
Tag this Judgment!Jadoomony Dabee and ors. Vs. Hafez Mahomed Ali Khan
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal295
Morris, J.1. The plaintiffs, in their plaint, stated Rs. 1,200 as approximately the amount of the mesne profits to which they were entitled, and paid court-fees on that amount. The decree for possession and mesne profits which they obtained left the determination of the amount of the mesne profits to be settled in execution without referring to the amount specified in the plaint or in any way limiting plaintiff's claim.2. The Subordinate Judge in execution has refused to allow plaintiff's anything beyond the amount stated in their plaint.3. Baboo Sreenath Doss for the respondent, by an ingenious calculation, endeavours to show that the rate per annum was definitely settled by the plaintiffs, and that the word 'approximately' (annumamik) used in the plaint, in connection with the estimated amount of claim, had reference only to the duration of the suit and the interval which might elapse before possession was obtained. We are not inclined to adopt this view, which is purely conjectural....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: SamiruddIn and Vs. Samiruddin
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal211
Field, J.1. In this case one Samiruddin has been convicted of murder by the Sessions Judge of Furreedpore sitting with Assessors, and has been sentenced to death. This sentence has been referred for confirmation; and the prisoner has appealed at the same time.2. In referring the case the Sessions Judge forwards a copy of a letter received by him from the Civil Surgeon, and expressing an opinion as to the nature of the wound inflicted upon the person of causing whose death the prisoner has been convicted. We cannot receive, or in any way act upon, this extra-judicial matter. The only opinion of the Civil Surgeon which can be considered in judicially dealing with the case, is an opinion expressed by him when examined as a witness under the usual tests to which witnesses are subjected.3. The Assessors were of opinion that the prisoner should be convicted of murder. But the value of this opinion is very much diminished when we find that some important matter which should not have been admi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- Next ›
- Last »