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
The Empress Vs. Kola Lalang and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal214
Field, J.1. The question in this case is concerned with the construction of Sections 15 and 16 of the Reng. Excise Act, VII of 1878. Two persons were charged under Section 61 of this Act with 'being in possession of a certain excisable article, to wit six quart bottles of native spirits, being a quantity in excess of the quantity specified in Section 15.' Now Section 15 is as follows:2. Unless the Board shall otherwise specially direct, the sale of any excisable article in a larger quantity than is specified below shall be deemed to be a sale by wholesale, and the sale of any other quantity shall be deemed a retail sale: Spirituous or fermented liquors, two imperial gallons, or twelve quart bottles.' The Chief Commissioner of Assam, exercising the powers of the Board of Revenue, made an order under the provisions of Section 15, declaring that six quart bottles shall be the maximum amount; and the question is, whether any lesser quantity so declared to be the maximum quantity by the Boa...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Soddanund Mahanty and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal259
Field, J.1. In this case six persons have been convicted under Section 61 of the Indian Stamp Act, I of 1879, under the following circumstances: These six persons were members of a punchayet, who decided a matter relating to a small piece of land, acting as arbitrators or umpires between two of their fellow-villagers. This decision, or arbitration, was reduced into writing, but the writing was not stamped. One of the persons at whose instance it was made having subsequently resorted to the Civil Court, this written award was filed in the suit. This paper may possibly have been an award within the meaning of Article 10, Schedule i of the Stamp Act, and as it had not been stamped, the Munsif, before whom it was filed, proceeded to impound it; and subsequently, in accordance with the provisions of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, he forwarded the paper to the Collector. The Collector upon this made an order that the writer of the document be sent to the Deputy Magistrate for trial under the C...
Tag this Judgment!Buddree Doss and anr. Vs. Hoare, Miller and Co.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal170
Wilson, J.1. I think there is no doubt whatever that the order ought to be made. The application is made under Sections 28 and 32 of Act X of 1877.2. As a general rule, if the plaintiff applies in proper time, he is entitled to have a person added as a defendant, if he had been entitled to join him originally. But, under Section 28, 'all persons may be joined as defendants against whom the light to any relief is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, in respect of the same matter.' Here the claim is against Hoare, Miller, & Co. If the facts turn out that Hoare, Miller, & Co. were the principals for whom Aushotosh Dutt, whom it is sought to add, was acting, they can claim to have their remedy in the alternative.3. I should have said so without authority, but there is express authority in the case of Child v. Stenning L.R. 5 Ch. D. 695.4. I think, therefore, that the order should be made as asked for. Costs should be costs in the cause....
Tag this Judgment!Chunder Kant Sandel Vs. Rajmonee Dabee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal440
Mitter, J.1. In this appeal the appellant having died, and no application having been made by her legal representative to be substituted in her place, the appeal will abate.2. A question has been raised as to the power of this Court to award any costs to the respondent, who, there cannot be any doubt, is justly entitled to them. I am of opinion that we have the power to award to the respondent the costs of this appeal, to be recovered from the estate of the deceased appellant.3. Section 582 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to the following effect: The Appellate Court shall have, in appeals under this chapter, the same powers, and shall perform, as nearly as may be, the same duties, as are conferred and imposed by this Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted under Chap. V; and in Sections 363 and 365, the word 'plaintiff' shall be held to include an 'appellant.'4. Although Section 366 is not expressly mentioned here, the power conferred by it on the Court...
Tag this Judgment!Umbica Prosad Tewary and ors. Vs. Ram Sahay Lall and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal898
Mitter, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Umbica Prosad and Sungthadin Tewary, sons of Thakoordeen Tewary, and Adiadin Tewary, grandson of the said Thakoordeen Tewary by a deceased son, to recover possession of a three annas share of Mouza Chuck Nyamut, out of the four annas share of the mouza, which constituted the joint family-property of these plaintiff's and Thakoordeen Tewary. The sixteen annas of Mouza Chuck Nyamut was registered in the Collector's Register as Estate No. 66. It is alleged in the plaint that a decree was obtained against Thakoordeen for money by Mussamut Tetra and others, and in execution of that decree only Thakoordeen's share in the family-property was sold on the 16th April 1877, and it was purchased by the defendants, who are the respondents before us. Then it is further alleged that, although only the interest of Thakoordeen was sold, the purchasers, the defendants--respondents in this case--under that purchase, succeeded in obtaining delive...
Tag this Judgment!Pursut Koer and anr. Vs. Palut Roy and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal442
Mitter, J.1. The only question of fact that we have to decide in this appeal is, whether the two brothers, Luchmi Narain Singh and Ramjoy Narain Singh, at the time of the death of the former, which took place in the year 1842, were members of a joint Hindu family. (After stating the facts, and finding on the evidence that Luchmi Narain and Ramjoy Narain were not members of a joint Hindu family at the time of the death of Luchmi Narain, his Lordship continued):2. This brings us to the question, whether, notwithstanding our finding that the brothers Luchmi Narain and Ramjoy Narain were separate, the plaintiffs' suit must fail on the ground of limitation. The finding of the lower Court upon this point is, that, on the death of Luchmi Narain, the whole of the family property came into the possession of Ramjoy Narain to the exclusion of the widow of the former, viz., Golab Koer. We are not prepared upon the evidence to dissent from this finding, although it seems to us that the possession o...
Tag this Judgment!Naik Pauree and anr. Vs. Gujadhur Pauree and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal528
Mitter, J.1. We think that, in this case, the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is erroneous, and must be set aside. There was a decree against the appellants before us for rent, and that decree directed, that if the amount decreed be not paid into Court within fifteen days from the date of the decree, the defendants should be ejected from the tenure. It is found by the Courts below that the amount decreed was actually brought into Court within fifteen days; but this money was not received by it, because, according to certain Departmental rules, it was to have been paid into the treasury. It is also found by the lower Appellate Court that there were no laches on the part of the judgment-debtors in complying with the Departmental rules for actually paying the amount decreed into the Government treasury. We think that this was a sufficient compliance with the decree. Where a decree directs the payment of money into Court within a limited time, it would be a sufficient compliance with...
Tag this Judgment!Joogulkishore Vs. Jotendro Mohun Tagore
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal210
Pontifex, J.1. I have already given my opinion in several cases as to the construction of the second Clause of Section 596 of Act X of 1877, which relates to a decree indirectly involving some claim or question to property of like amount or value, when the same title applies to other property as to which litigation might arise. In this case the plaintiff purchased two properties for a certain value, deriving his title from the reversionary heir of one N.C. Roy. The Tagore defendant purchased exactly the same properties, deriving their title through the widow of N.C. Roy. The question between the plaintiff and the Tagore defendant is, which has the better title to these two properties under the circumstances. The Tagore defendant has put in an affidavit, from which it appears that the value of the two properties with mesne profits would be over Rs. 10,000. The predecessors of the Tagores gave one of the properties in patni to one set of persons, and gave a patni of the other property to...
Tag this Judgment!Sriman Sadagopa, Sri Sadagopa Edintara Maha Desika Swamiar Vs. Jamuna ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad54
Innes, J.1. In 1862, one Virasami Nayudu instituted a suit on the Equity Side of the late Supreme Court of Madras for a partition of the family property held jointly by him and others.2. An injunction issued to Venkatasami Nayudu, his brother, inhibiting him from intermeddling with the property pending the suit.3. On the 12th May 1863, the injunction was continued. By the decree the master was directed to sell the property and distribute the proceeds.4. On the 7th July 1866, the property was sold, and one Arunachala Mudali became the purchaser on behalf (as is alleged) of one Virji Lal. The latter left a widow Devaki Bhai and a daughter Jamuna Bhai. Arunachala left a will appointing Shanmuga Mudali and Ekambaram Mudali his executors. On the 24th March 1873, they conveyed the property purchased by Arunachala at the Court-sale to the widow of Virji Lal, Devaki Bhai. The latter died in 1875, leaving a will in which she appointed the plaintiffs as her executrixes; and the suit arises out o...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Sahoo Vs. Gunga Pershad Sahoo and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal530
Mitter, J.1. We think that the decisions of the lower Courts in this case are not correct, and must be set aside. The plaintiff brought this suit against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, upon a mortgage-bond executed on the 30th Kartick 1282 (corresponding to the 15th of November 1874). The mortgage-bond was executed by the defendant No. 1, who is a purdanasheen lady, through the defendant No. 2. In that bond a sixteen-ganda share of Mouza Futtehpore was hypothecated as security for the loan. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover the money due by enforcing his mortgage lien. The suit was brought against the executants of the bond and Gunga Pershad Sahoo, who became the auction-purchaser of the property, mortgaged after the execution of the bond. In the written statement of Gunga Pershad, who alone defended the suit, it is alleged that, on the 2nd of September 1875, the property mortgaged, viz., the sixteen-ganda share of Futtehpore, was sold by the mortgagors to the plaintiff, and the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- Next ›
- Last »