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
Kanayalal Vs. Pyarabai Widow of Ramnarayan and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom139
Melvill, J.1. The facts found proved by the Courts below are as follows:2. In 1840 the house in dispute was mortgaged by Kanayalal to Ramnarayan and his brother Chitramal. At a partition of the family property the mortgaged house fell to the share of Ramnarayan, whose widow, Pyarabai, sold it to the second defendant, Ladha, in 1868. Ladha re-sold it to the third defendant, Thakur, in 1871. The present suit is brought by Panalal, as Kanayalal's heir to redeem the mortgage.3. The authority of Ramji v. Chinto has not, as the District Judge supposes, been weakened, and any gahan lahan clause, which there may have been in the original mortgage, would not prevent the redemption. But the Courts below have found that the mortgage was foreclosed by a decree of Court in 1852. Unfortunately, this decree is not forthcoming: and the only evidence that such a decree was ever passed consists of a reference to a copy of the decree in a judgment passed by the Sadar Amin in another suit, and a statement...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Chetti Vs. Ramasami Chetti and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad220
Kindersley, J.1. This suit has been brought upon a hundi drawn by the defendant on his firm at Colombo. In the Courts below the objection was taken that the hundi, which was never presented for payment, was not stamped until long after the date on which it was drawn. The Acting District Judge was of opinion that, as the hundi was payable at Colombo, which is not in British India, it did not require a stamp. He, therefore, admitted the hundi in evidence and based his judgment upon it.2. If the point were properly before us, we should be unable to concur in the opinion of the District Judge. Section 16 of the Stamp Act shows that all instruments chargeable with duty and executed in British India ought to be stamped, either before or at the time of their execution. But the document having been admitted in evidence by the District Judge, we are precluded by Section 34,1 Clause 3 of the Stamp Act from allowing it to be called in question now. The objection is not one affecting the merits of...
Tag this Judgment!Subba Rau Vs. Virappa
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad162
Kindersley, J.1. In this case both of the Courts below have found that the defendant brought a criminal charge against the plaintiff with malice and without reasonable or probable cause. It has been argued that the District Munsif in awarding damages was wrong in taking into consideration the fees which the defendant paid to vakils employed in his defence, and we have been referred to Gajpathi Rau v. Narasing Rau 6. M.H.C.R. 89 as laying down the rule that in no case should the fees of counsel be taken into consideration in assessing the damages in such suits. But that decision does not really lay down any such general rule. In that case counsel had probably been brought at a large expense to Vizagapatam from Madras; the Lower Court had allowed as much as Rs. 50,000 by way of damages; and one of the Judges in reducing the damages remarked that the fees of counsel (which must have been very large) were not a proper element for consideration. There are several English cases which show th...
Tag this Judgment!Abasu Begum Vs. Umda Khanum and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal724
Field, J.1. In this case one Umda Khanum has been required to give rupees one thousand as recognizance and two sureties in rupees five hundred each to keep the peace for the term of one year, and one Bahadoor Lall has been required to give rupees two hundred as recognizance and two sureties in rupees one hundred each to keep the peace for the same term.2. The Sessions Judge of Gya has referred the case to this Court to have the order quashed, on the ground that the summons issued under Sections 491, 492 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not, as it should have done, specify the amount of the recognizance, the number of sureties required, and the amount in which they were to be bound respectively.3. Section 492 distinctly provides that the summons shall set forth the substance of the report or information on which it is issued, the amount of the bond, and the term for which it is to be enforced, and, if security is called for, the number of sureties required and the amount in which t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Petition of Gopal Chunder Sirdar. Gopal Chunder Sirdar Vs. Fool ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal728
McDonell, J.1. In this case one Shib Chand Bhandari was charged with extortion, the extortion being said to consist in taking Rs. 15 from a woman by threatening to bring a charge of theft against her.2. The petitioner before us, Gopal Chunder Sirdar, was the village chowkidar, and he has been convicted of abetment of the extortion committed by Shib Chand Bhandari.3. The Deputy Magistrate says in his judgment, 'though it does not appear that he (Gopal Chunder Sirdar) said or did anything in particular, his presence during the occurrence, added to the fact of his not having disapproved of the accused Shib Chand's words and conduct and action, sufficiently indicate the abetment on his part.'4. We think that the omission on the part of Gopal Chunder Sirdar to disapprove of the conduct of Shib Chand Bhandari, cannot, under the circumstances, be said to amount to abetment. The only portion of the definition in Section 1071 of the Penal Code which can be supposed to apply is the third clause,...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Petition of Protap Chunder Ghose Vs. Protap Chunder Ghose
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal848
Prinsep, J.1. In this case Protap Chunder Ghose, the proprietor of certain property in the 24-Parganas, applied, under Section 38 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869, to the Civil Court in that district, to have a survey made and the tenures and under-tenures recorded according to the provisions of the Rent Law.2. This application was admitted, and a copy of the order was transmitted to the Collector, directing him to undertake the survey. When the papers came in from the Ameen, an objection was raised by Jadub Chunder Ghose, one of the tenure-holders, as to whether the record was such a record as was contemplated under the Act, and it was urged that, before the record could be considered complete, a khatean should be prepared, from which the parties interested could obtain knowledge of the amount of land recorded in their names, so as to enable them to raise any objection that they might deem necessary against the survey. Several orders were passed on this subject, but it is only now necessary ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Petition of Dinendro Nath Shanial
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal851
McDonell, J.1. We are of opinion that the provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by Section 6 of Act XI of 1874, are wide enough to empower the Magistrate of the District to withdraw a case falling under Section 491 of the same Code.2. Were it otherwise, it is not suggested, and we are unable to see, that the person concerned has been in any way prejudiced by the course which has been taken; and we think that this reference in the matter of an interlocutory order was unnecessary in the interests of justice....
Tag this Judgment!Roushan Bibee Vs. Hurray Kristo Nath and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal926
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We are under the necessity of remanding this case to the lower Appellate Court for retrial, inasmuch as the District Judge appears to have decided it upon Section 62 1 of the Contract Act, which, so far as we can see, has nothing to do with the matter. In fact, the Judge seems quite to have misapprehended the meaning of that section.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff against the two defendants, father and son, alleging that the father was his tenant up to the year 1281; but that, in that year, the other defendant, the son, gave him a kabuliat at an increased annual jama of Rs. 69; that thus both defendants became his tenants at the higher jama, and paid it for one year; but that, they having since failed to pay it for the years 1283 and 1284 and part of the year 1282, he brought this suit to recover the rents of those years with damages, road cess, house tax, &c.;3. The defendants denied not only that a kabuliat was ever given, but that the relationship of l...
Tag this Judgment!Huro Pershad Roy Vs. Gopal Das Dutt and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal255
R.P. Collier, J.1. In this case, the sole question is as to the application of the Law of Limitation. The claim is for rent from April 1866 to June 1872. The terms of the 29th Section of Act VIII of 1869 of the Bengal Council are these: 'Suits for the recovery of arrears of rent shall be instituted within three years from the last day of the Bengal year, or from the last day of the month of Jeyt of the Fashi or Willayatti year in which the arrear claimed shall have become due.' It is admitted that in this case the suit was not instituted within three years from the end of the year when the last rent became due, and, therefore, prima facie, it is barred by the Law of Limitation. This prima facie case is endeavoured to be answered in this way: The plaintiff says that in 1874, that is to say, two years after the last instalment of the rent sued for had accrued due, the Statute ceased to operate because he instituted a litigation which had the effect of preventing it from running, and that...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Fayez Chowdhry Vs. Jamoo Gazee and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal730
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The only question raised in this appeal is, whether the sum which the defendants undertook to pay to the plaintiff for collection charges at the rate of two annas in the rupee, was a claim which the plaintiff has a right to enforce.2. The plaintiff granted to the defendants a patni talook at a fixed jama of Rs. 600, for which the defendants gave the plaintiff a kabuliat; and the defendants, by the same kabuliat, agreed to pay the plaintiff collection charges at the rate of two annas in the rupee along with the instalments of the annual rent.3. This suit was brought both for arrears of rent and also for arrears of the two annas in the rupee for collection charges; but the defendants contended that the latter claim could not be enforced, inasmuch as it represented the illegal cesses which were collected from ryots.4. Both the lower Courts have disallowed the claim upon the ground, and apparently upon the authority of the case of Kamala Kant Ghose v. Kalu Mahomed Man...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- Next ›
- Last »