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
Navivahoo Vs. Narotamdas Candas
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom5
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made on the 14th May, 1882, by Mr. Justice Bayley, committing the appellant to prison for contempt of Court in not obeying an order of 23rd December, 1881, by which she was ordered to produce certain cash books and ledgers for the inspection of the respondent. A preliminary objection was taken that an appeal would not lie against the order. It was said that Section 591 of the Civil Procedure Code (Act X) of 1877 provides that no appeal should lie from any order passed by any Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction except as provided in chapter XLIII and that the order in question is not to be found amongst those enumerated in Section 588 from which an appeal is given. This would be true if the order in question had Seen passed in the, exercise of its original civil jurisdiction; for that, we apprehend, must be the meaning of original jurisdiction in a Code of Civil Procedure. Contempts, however, are in the nature o...
Tag this Judgment!Empress Vs. Tucker,
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom42
Kemball, J.1. This is an application for our interference under the special powers given, us by Section 147 of the High Court's Criminal Procedure Code (X of. 1875), no appeal being allowed by law: see Sections 167 and 180 of the Presidency Magistrates Act (IV of 1877). The accused appear to have been convicted under two sections of the Penal Code (sections 151 and 188), apparently, therefore, of two separate offences, the gist of each, however, being the same, viz., disobedience of lawful commands, though but one sentence has been passed, and that of almost a nominal character--a fine of Rs. 50 being inflicted in the case of Mr. Tucker and Rs. 25 upon the other two,--and the only question which we have to consider is whether a sufficient case has been made out on the merits to induce us to suppose that there has been a failure of justice. With reference to the charge under Section 151 of the Indian Penal Code it has been argued that there was no assembly, there being merely the three ...
Tag this Judgment!Madar Saheb Vs. Subbarayalu Nayudu
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad88
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The question in this second appeal is whether plaintiff's registered sale-deed in 1878 renders defendant's attachment in execution of the decree in Suit 53 of 1879 on an unregistered hypothecation-deed of 1872 inoperative under the provisions of Section 501 of the Registration Act and whether the attachment ought to he removed ?2. Had defendant's document been opposed to plaintiff's document in the suit of 1879, there can be no question that, under the provisions of Section 50 of the Registraticn Act, plaintiff's document would have taken effect against defendant's document.3. Indeed, the operation of registered documents against unregistered documents is an operation which takes effect from the moment of execution (Section 472), and, therefore, from 4th July 1878, the date of the plaintiff's sale-deed, defendant's hypothecation-deed ceased to have operation as regards the property comprised therein. Can the decree in Suit 53 of 1879, to which plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Cowasji Beramji Lilaoovala an Alleged Lunatic
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom15
Latham, J.1. The only ground on which the Acting Advocate General on behalf of the alleged lunatic objected to my reporting to the Court that his client was 'of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs', was the opinion expressed by Dr. Nolan that Cowasji's mental infirmity was not unsoundness of mind, but weakness of mind or imbecility resulting from old age. Dr. Nolan says that as a medical term, unsoundness of mind answers to what is popularly styled lunacy, and is applied only to the state of mind resulting from disease, not to congenital imbecility or senile decay of the mental powers; or, as I suppose it might be put, to amentia not dementia. The expression 'whether the alleged lunatic is of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs' is taken from Stat. 16 and 17 Vic., c. 70, Sections 44 and 47, and is repeated in the later English Act 25 and 26 Vic., c. 86, Section 3. From Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence (2nd ed., 1873), Vol. 2, p. 480, ...
Tag this Judgment!Muttuvayyangar Vs. Kudalalagayyangar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad97
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. We are of opinion that Section 265*, Civil Procedure Code, does not apply to property held on raiyatwari tenure, but to permanently-settled estates.2. As to the other grounds of appeal, we think that the Acting District Judge Mr. Turner, ought not to have disposed of the appeal without considering the grounds of appeal put forward by the appellant. It is objected that he did not consider them, and the judgment, which is very brief, appears to indicate that he failed to give attention to the several reasons set out by appellant on which the propriety of the Munsif 's judgment was alleged to be open to question.3. We shall set aside the order of the late Acting District Judge and remand the appeal for rehearing. The costs will be costs in the cause.* Partition of estate or separation of share.[Section 265: If the decree be for the partition or for the separate possession of a share of an undivided estate paying revenue to Government, the partition of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Govindarajulu Vs. Lakshuman
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR6Mad37
Innes, Kernan, and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The facts are as follow : On the 15th April last, some cartmen going from Dharmapuri to Morapur drove their carts along an old road, probably with intent to avoid payment of toll which they would have had to pay if they had taken the more usual road, where a toll-gate is maintained. The toll-collector caught these men at a point about a mile beyond the toll-gate and demanded toll, but payment was refused. He therefore attached the bullocks, one for each cart, but the cartmen rescued the bullocks and drove away. The toll-contractor thereupon lodged a complaint before the Second-class Magistrate of Dharmapuri, accusing them of having taken away the animals he had attached.2. The Second-class Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that the carts did not pass through the toll-gate, that the cartmen were at liberty to travel by any way they pleased, and that it was not lawful for the contractor t...
Tag this Judgment!Subbayyan and anr. Vs. Rappa Nagasami Ayyan and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad155
Innes, J.1. The third defendant, a creditor of first and second defendants, who were respectively the father and brother of the plaintiff's, sued first and second defendants and obtained a decree against them. In execution of the decree he attached the family property, and plaintiffs came forward and objected that they were not parties to the suit and applied for the release of their shares, from attachment. The order passed by the Court executing the decree practically allowed their claim for it confined the sale to be held to the right, title, and interest 1 of the first and second defendants. Third defendant became, the purchaser.2. He managed to get into possession of the whole notwithstanding the order ! passed, and plaintiffs then brought this suit to recover their shares of the property.3. The Munsif gave a decree for plaintiffs. The Subordinate Judge thought the decree and execution bound the plaintiffs, as the debt of the father ' was incurred in trade for the family, and dism...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatakrishnacharya Vs. Peter George Coelho
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad170
Kernan and Kindersley, JJ.1. The respondent was arrested and brought before the Sadr Amin and made an application under Section 273 of Act VIII of 1859 for discharge from arrest.2. The application was made on the 21st of June 1871, and, on that occasion, the respondent made a deposition, which he subscribed, and set out his property in detail, and stated he was willing to place it at the disposal of the Court. Thereupon, the Judge made an order to release him. The order states that the petitioner's Vakil elected to proceed against the property. This statement does not interfere with the legal effect of the order for release made upon compliance by the respondent with the provisions entitling him to release.3. No doubt, the respondent might, after that order, have been re-arrested, if it was shown he committed any of the acts mentioned in Section 275 before the order for release was made. The Act provides that, if the release was obtained by deceiving the Court, or if the debtor has, be...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppa Gurukal Vs. Dorasami Gurukal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad76
Innes and Kindersley, JJ.1. The question in this appeal is--whether an alienation by a, pujari of his office is one which can be recognized as legal ?2. First and second defendants, two brothers, acquired jointly in 1869 certain rights of performing puja. in certain temples. They are undivided, but they enjoyed this right severally, each, as is found, taking his turn of performance of the office in accordance with arrangements made by them.3. On the 12th October 1878 the first defendant sold his right to plaintiff,, who instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises to enforce the right thus transferred to him, as, since the purchase, the defendants had prevented his enjoyment of it.4. The District Munsif found in favour of plaintiff against the contention of the second defendant that the enjoyment of the office by his brother was joint, and that he had never enjoyed the specific right of seven and a half days puja which he had pretended to dispose of to plaintiff, and that...
Tag this Judgment!Manu Miya Vs. the Empress
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal371
Norris, J.1. In this case there were four heads of charge or counts against the prisoner, viz., first, house-breaking by night with intent to commit theft in the house of one Baroda Prosad Das; second, theft from the same house; third, house-breaking by night with intent to commit theft in the house of one Tarini Churn Dutta; and, fourth, theft from the same house.2. At the trial before the Sessions Judge the prisoner pleaded guilty to the first and third heads of charge, and was sentenced upon the first to three years rigorous imprisonment, and upon the third to three years rigorous imprisonment, to commence at the expiry of the sentence passed under the first head of charge.3. It does not appear that any plea was recorded upon the second and fourth heads of charge; the Judge merely says: 'No sentences are given under the second and fourth heads of charge as they are included in the first and third heads.'4. The Magistrate committed the prisoner upon one charge only, including therein...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- Next ›
- Last »