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
Francis John RaffIn and ors. Vs. the Steam Ship Chilka
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom196
Scott, J.1. This is a salvage suit instituted by the captain, officers and crew of the steam ship Henry Bolckow against the steam ship Chilka and her freight.2. The Henry Bolckow is as crew steamer of 689 tons net register and 99 horse power. The Chilka is a vessel of 1,497 tons register and 200 horse power belonging to the British India Steam Navigation Company, of whom the defendants in this suit are the agents in Bombay. The Chilka was chartered last autumn by the Secretary of State for India to convey troops and stores to Egypt, and left Bombay on the 28th August, 1882, for Suez with 133 camp followers, 234 mules, and a crew of 101 all told.3. On the 3rd September, at 8-15 P.M., her machinery broke down. The fact is thus recorded in her log-book: 'Shaft broken in stern-tube and unable to turn ahead or astern.' She was then ninety-six miles from Ras Fartak, the nearest point on the Arabian coast, in lat. 14-9 N., long. 52-49 E.4. She fired guns, sent up rockets, displayed signals of...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Prosad Singh Vs. Sundur Lall and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal644
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the District Judge of Sarun, dismissing a petition for execution of decree, dated the 4th August 1870, upon two grounds: (1st), that the application for execution is barred by limitation; and (2ndly), that as regards one of the judgment-debtors, viz., the defendant No. 2, he is liable only to the extent of the property hypothecated in a certain bond executed in favour of the plaintiff,' decree-holder, and that that property having been sold he is not any further liable for the balance of the decree. It appears that the application next preceding the one now, under our consideration for execution was filed on the 26th September 1877. It was followed by the sale of certain property: on the 1st of April 1878. Then it further appears that on the 8th July 1878, the decree-holder deposited Rs. 2 as Nilamee fees, that is, costs of bringing certain property to sale in execution of the decree in question. The present application was made on...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Bank Corporation Vs. the Baree Tea Company, Limited
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal880
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In these cases I entirely agree with the Court below, and upon the same grounds.2. Both suits were brought to recover the amount of certain bills of exchange from the defendants Company, which bills, it was alleged, had been drawn by Messrs. Nicholls & Co., upon, and accepted by themselves as the defendants' Agents, and endorsed by Nicholls & Co. to the plaintiffs Bank.3. Messrs. Nicholls & Co., were undoubtedly the Managing Agents of the defendants Company and by the Articles of Association they were empowered as such Agents 'to draw, accept, endorse, and negotiate on behalf of the Company all such cheques, promissory notes, drafts, etc., as should be necessary for enabling them to carry on the business of the Company.'4. The bills in question were drawn by Nicholls & Co., upon the Managing Agents of the Baree Tea Company; they were accepted by Nicholls & Co., under the description 'Managing Agents of the Baree Tea Company.' They were payable to the order of Nich...
Tag this Judgment!Adiveru Dinabhandupatrudu and ors. Vs. Lokanadhasami and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad322
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. A zamindar cannot put an end to the relation of landlord and tenant, except in the manner provided by law, and it is apparent that, in this case, nothing was done by the zamindar to determine the tenancy. The zamindar, however, alleges that the tenancy was determined by the act of the tenant himself. The merely allowing the land to be waste would not of itself, determine the tenancy. Such procedure on the part of a tenant would, under some circumstances, be evidence of an intention to abandon the holding; under others, it would prove no such intention : for instance, in a season of drought, it would be idle for a tenant to attempt to put a crop into the ground. If then the appellant as purchaser, acquired the tenant's right, it must be determined whether he has put an end to the tenancy, or deprived himself of his right to recover possession.2. The District Judge is requested to try the following issues upon the evidence already recorded, and upon such fu...
Tag this Judgment!Mohiny Mohun Das Vs. Krishno Kishore Dutt and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal802
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case the Subordinate Judge has unfortunately taken an erroneous view of the law.2. The subject of the dispute was a piece of land between two estates. It is admitted that one of these estates belonged to the plaintiff, and the other to the defendants. The question was, to which of the two the piece of land in question belonged.3. Between these two estates there was a baor or water channel; and it seems to have been found by the Courts below that the land in question was formed by the silting up of this baor. Evidence was called on both sides to show at what time the silting up took place, or in other words, at what time the land in question, which was originally covered with water, became dry.4. Upon that point the Subordinate Judge appears to have believed the defendants' witnesses in preference to those of the plaintiff. The defendants' witnesses said that the land became dry more than twelve years before suit: and the plaintiff's witnesses said that it ...
Tag this Judgment!Empress Vs. Bhagvanta Ravji
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom303
Kemball, J.1. The District Magistrate is in the opinion of the Court, right. The powers conferred originally on Rav Saheb Moro Raghunath Bivalkar were those of a 2nd Class Magistrate. Since the passing of the new Code those powers, whatever they may be, must be taken, by virtue of Section 2 of the new Code, to have been conferred by the new Code. This was obviously enacted to avoid the inconvenience of re-appointing officers on the repeal of the old Code; but the provisions of Section 2 were not intended to continue to 2nd Class Magistrates a jurisdiction which the new law expressly says they shall not exercise except, they are specially empowered so to do....
Tag this Judgment!Atri Bai Vs. Arnopoorna Bai
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal838
Prinsep, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised to the hearing of this appeal that the law (Section 39 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1870) does not provide for a second appeal; and that only certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, among which the chapter relating to appeals is not to be found, are extended to proceedings under that Act, The case falls under Part IV of the Land Acquisition Act, and relates to the apportionment of the compensation awarded. The limitation of the application of the Code applies only to Part VII. Further it appears to us from the very nature of the dispute between the parties that these proceedings must be regarded as a suit. In the next place Section 39 declares that in cases like the present case 'the appeal shall lie in the first instance to the District Judge,' from which it would seem that a further appeal was contemplated by the Legislature. In any case, however, having regard to the nature of the proceedings and the powers conferred...
Tag this Judgment!ishan Chunder Chattopadhya Vs. Shama Churn Dutt and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal41
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I confess I have had some doubt during the arguments whether this case comes within the principle which has been so frequently acted upon in this Court, and of which the case of Sattyabhama Dassee v. Krishna Chunder Chatterjee I.L.R. 6 Cal. 55 forms an example.2. But on a closer investigation of the facts, and having regard to the way in which the defendants have framed their defence in the present suit, I am satisfied that it does come within that principle.3. In the year 1877, one of the four defendants, who had registered himself as the owner of the property in the place of his deceased father, the former owner, was sued for rent by the plaintiff in respect of his, the plaintiff's share of this very land; and the defendant's answer in that suit was a denial of the plaintiff's title, and an assertion that he (the defendant) and his father had a lakeraj title to the property.4. It is perfectly true that in his written statement in that case he also alleged that t...
Tag this Judgment!Empress Vs. Bhagvan Bhivsan
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom379
1. Act XIII of 1859 is not intended to apply to a contract of service such as that which the accused entered into, in this case. He stipulated that, in consideration of receiving Rs. 45, he bound himself to render service for agricultural and other purposes for the period of one year. The order of the First Class Magistrate is, therefore, reversed; and, if the Rs. 20 has already been paid to the complainant the Court directs that it should be paid back to the accused....
Tag this Judgment!Arunachala Pillai Vs. Ramasamya Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad402
1. The plaintiff and the second defendant are brothers, and sons of Muttusami Pillai, deceased.2. Plaintiff brought suit No. 43 of 1877 against his father and the second defendant for partition, and obtained a decree, dated the 6th April 1878, and a declaration that, as to the out standings due to the family, the plaintiff was entitled to and to collect one-third share thereof.3. Amongst the out standings was item No. 25 referred to in the decree, Rs. 200 due by a debtor to the family. Plaintiff might have given notice to the debtor to pay him, plaintiff, his one-third, but he did not do so before it was paid to the plaintiff's father.4. The debtor paid on the 12th of May 1878.5. Plaintiff now sues the first defendant, the debtor, for his one-third share and also the second defendant, plaintiff's brother, their father being dead.6. The suit is dismissed against the first defendant, as he duly paid the debt to plaintiff's father; and there is no appeal against the decision. But both the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 164
- 165
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- Next ›
- Last »