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
Chundee Churn Dutt Vs. Eduljee Cowasjee Bijnee and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal678
Garth, C.J.1. Having heard these questions properly argued, I am satisfied that, in the case of Roop Chund Pundit v. Madhub Chunder Bose ante p. 681 n; Mr. Justice Pontifex and myself were wrong in holding that, as a matter of law, the Official Gazette was the only proper medium of publication under Section 264 of the Contract Act. I discussed this subject with Mr. Justice Pontifex before he left the Court, and I am authorised by him to say, that he quite agrees with me in so thinking.2. In that case, unfortunately, we had not the advantage of hearing counsel; and we rather took it for granted, without sufficiently considering the relative character of the two publications, that the Official Gazette in Calcutta was, in most material respects, the same sort of paper as the 'London Gazette' in England. But in fact this is not so. The 'London Gazette' has not only a large and general circulation in the commercial world, but it is the usual and now almost the invariable mode of advertising...
Tag this Judgment!Hemangini Dasi Vs. NobIn Chand Ghose and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal788
Field, J.1. The position of the parties in this case will appear from the genealogical tree to be found at page 4 of the paper-book. Hurro Mohun Ghose, the testator, died in Aghran 1270, that is, November 1863. He left a will executed on the 4th Assar 1268 (17th June 1861). As to the factum of this will there is no dispute before us, and the present case is concerned solely with the construction to be put upon the paragraphs of this instrument. Hurro Mohun had two sons, Shyam Chand and Nobin Chand, and three daughters, named Troilukhya Moni, Gobind Moni, and Nistarini,2. Of the two sons, Shyam Chand died in 1257 (1850), during his father's lifetime, and left three sons,--viz., Aubinash Chunder, Gopal Chunder, and Atul Chunder, all three of whom are mentioned and provided for in the will. Aubinash Chunder died in 1271 (1864), about a year after his grandfather, and the plaintiff in the present case, Hemangini, is his only daughter and heiress. Nobin Chand survived his father Hurro Mohun...
Tag this Judgment!Rajroop Kooer Vs. Bhekhan Dobey
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal912
Mitter, J.1. The lower Appellate Court dealt with the case apparently on two grounds: (1) that there was a verbal contract to pay the judgment-debt by instalments, and the suit would lie on that contract; (2) that a fresh cause of action arose on defendant's failure to pay the contract instalments.2. The defendant appeals on the ground that the lower Appellate Court has omitted to try the question of limitation, and contends that limitation ran before 29th June 1878, and that, even allowing plaintiff the time occupied in the execution-proceedings, which terminated on that day, the suit is barred.3. It certainly appears to us that the Subordinate Judge's decree is erroneous on his own view of the case. If there was a cause of action on defendant's failure to pay the instalments, then certainly the suit was not brought in time from the 14th August 1875, the date of the first instalment, and the claim should have been reduced by the amount of that, and possibly of other instalments also.4...
Tag this Judgment!Thakoor Purshad Vs. Hurbans Sahye and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal209
Mitter, J.1. It has been contended that, if the review be granted on a particular ground, we are bound to re-hear the whole case under Section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but the words 'or make such order in regard to the re-hearing as it thinks fit,' in the section in question, leave it to our discretion either to re-hear the whole case or any particular point that seems to us fit. The observation of the Judicial Committee in Bhugwandeen Doobey v. Myna Baee 11 Moore's I.A. 499 supports this view. As we have re-heard the case with reference to the question of share, I am of opinion that we are in a position to make the final decree without another hearing. Our decree, therefore, should be altered as directed above. The petitioners are entitled to recover costs of this hearing, which I would assess at Rs. 200.Maclean, J.2. I find with regret that I am of a different opinion from my learned and more experienced colleague upon one of the points raised in this application,-namely, ...
Tag this Judgment!Kommireddi Varaha Narasimham Vs. Chevala Ramasami Nayudu and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad136
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The argument of the plaintiff in this reference proceeds on the assumption that a patta is necessarily a lease or contains a lease. A patta is not necessarily more than a definite statement, for the protection of both landlord and tenant, of the charges to be paid by the tenant for a particular year or term of years.2. The mere circumstance, therefore, that the parties have arranged without a writing that the one should occupy and the other pay rent is not sufficient to raise the inference that they dispensed with the provision of the law that patta and muchalka should be exchanged.3. The agreement to dispense with patta and muchalka need not be express, but it must appear, as observed by the Subordinate Judge, that the provision of the law was present to the minds of the contracting parties and that they deliberately elected not to act upon it....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Sakiya
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad137
1. The Second-class Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 22, Madras Act III of 1864, and imposed a fine of Rs. 7, but omitted to pass an order under Section 26B for the award in equal shares to the appre-hender and the informer of the fine levied, and of the articles confiscated by the Collector under Section 17, to wit, two asses, a pack-saddle, and four bags by, on, and in which the illicit conveyance of liquor was effected.2. The District Magistrate submits that the omission to pass an order under Section 26B is illegal, and further asks whether the value of the articles confiscated by him as Collector under Section 17 is subject to the order of the Magistrate, in whose Court the conviction was obtained, for distribution under Section 26B.3. As the District Magistrate submits, an order must be made by the Subordinate Magistrate under Section 26B* of the Abkari Act.4. With regard to the question on which the District Magistrate expresses a doubt, we observe that Section 23A...
Tag this Judgment!Chunder Coomar Mitter Vs. Sib Sundari Dassee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal631
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This is a suit for enhancement, and three questions have been raised by the defendant: first, that no notice of enhancement was served; secondly, that the rent was not enhanceable; and thirdly, that there were no grounds for enhancing it.2. The Munsif found that notice had been served; but as to the other points,--namely, whether the rent was enhanceable, and whether there were any grounds for enhancing it,--he found them against the plaintiff. For the purpose of proving that the rent was not enhanceable, the defendant relied upon a decree which was passed in a suit for enhancement brought by the same plaintiff against the same defendant in 1875. In that suit there were two issues: first, whether there was a proper notice of enhancement; and secondly, whether the rent was enhanceable. The Munsif found that the service of notice was sufficient, but he also found that the rent could not be enhanced. Upon these findings, there were two appeals to the Subordinate Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Kondayya Vs. Guruvappa and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad139
Innes, J.1. Plaintiff was in possession from 1872 to 1880 under an optionally registerable, but unregistered, conveyance from first and second defendants. In 1879 they conveyed to third defendant. His conveyance was registered. He then dispossessed the plaintiff.2. The case Tirumala v. Lakshmi I.L.R. 2 Mad. 147 and a case in which judgment was delivered by the Chief Justice and myself on the 17th ultimo [Nallappa Goundan v. Ibram Sahib I.L.R. 5 Mad. 73 are decisive on the question involved in this case.3. In the latter case we referred to Fuzludeen Khan v. Fakir Mahomed Khan I.L.R. 5 Cal. 336 in which it was held that the first sale was, according to the intention of the Legislature, subject to the risk of the title of the vendee being displaced by a subsequent innocent purchaser without notice whose conveyance was duly registered, and we only dissented from the view taken that notice in the subsequent purchaser would affect the question of the ineffectiveness of a prior unregistered d...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhi Mannan Vs. Seshagiri Bhakthan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad141
Innes, J.1. It appears to me that we ought to uphold the order made and dismiss this appeal. The application to the Court to obtain a copy of a diary order, certifying that a copy of the Revenue Register of the properties against which the decree-holder desired to execute his decree was necessary to enable him to do so was, I think, an application to the Court to take some step in aid of the execution of the decree. He required the copy of the register, because without it he could not execute the decree. He required that the Court should certify that such a copy was necessary, because, without such certificate from a Court, Revenue officers, as a matter of fact, refuse, though they ought not to refuse, to give copies of documents.2. The only question seems to be whether such an application can be said to be made in accordance with law to the proper Court. It is possible that, by incessant applications to the Revenue authorities, the decree-holder might have obtained a copy of the regis...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Nayudu Vs. Yelaya Nayudu and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad251
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. On the issue sent down, the finding must be taken to be that there is nothing to show whether the decree was executed as to the personal remedy or as to the remedy against the mortgaged property. The view of the District Judge is most probably correct, that the sale was ordered and carried out in execution of so much of the decree as was personal and in execution of the order for the enforcement of the mortgage.2. What the Full Bench judgments of the majority of the Judges decided was that in cases similar to that now before the Court the rule laid down in Girdharee Lall v. Kantoo Lall and Girdharee Lall v. Muddan Thakoor 14 B.L.R. 187 : L.R. 1 IndAp 321 ought to be followed in this as in other Presidencies. We think we ought to follow the rule, therefore, without addition of the dicta to be found in pages 69 and 70 of the Report in I.L.R. 4 Madras Series.3. As the debt was not immorally or illegally contracted, we reverse the decrees of the Courts belo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- Next ›
- Last »