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
Subramanya Ayyar Vs. the Queen
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad396
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. 1. On the 14th September the Magistrate of the District issued a warrant for the arrest of the petitioner to answer charges of offences punishable under Sections 2011 and 5062 of the Indian Penal Code. The signature of the Magistrate was not in writing, but impressed with a stamp. It contained no direction that bail should be taken.2. The petitioner was arrested and brought before the Magistrate on 14th September, and was directed to attend on the following day. No written order was recorded for the adjournment, nor was any recognizance taken from the petitioner.3. On the 15th September the District Magistrate tried the petitioner summarily, convicted him of an offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The record, which also was not signed but stamped, was apparently made by a clerk in violation of the provisions of Section 2292 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1872. It...
Tag this Judgment!Jamuna Bhai Ammal and anr. Vs. Sriman Sadagopa, Sri Sadagopa, Edintara ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad56
Innes, J.1. Mr. Ramachandra Rau Saheb has pointed out that the second defendant not having been a party to the equity suit, and his interest in the property having been mortgaged by him in 1865 to the first defendant, who finally, in execution of the decree in Suit No. 30 of 1871 against this second defendant and others, purchased the interest of second defendant in the property in Court sale, the interest of the second defendant passed to the first defendant, and that first defendant, therefore, represents him in the suit in appeal and second appeal, and that we are mistaken, therefore, in saying that we had no concern with any right he might have had to have the judgment of the District Munsif modified. He contends that we ought to have allowed first defendant's claim to one-fourth of the property representing the interest of second defendant and only dismissed the appeal as to three-fourths. Mr. Ramachandra Rau Saheb also informs us that the Advocate-General has no objection to this...
Tag this Judgment!Nawab Ahmed-un-nissa Begam Sahiba Vs. A.T. Arundel, President of the M ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad63
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The Municipal Commissioners have power to impose a tax on houses, buildings and lands with certain exceptions, at a rate not exceeding 10 per cent. of the annual value.2. When such a tax has been imposed, the President may, at his discretion in lieu of the tax, levy on lands unappropriated to buildings or occupied by native huts a fixed annual tax not exceeding 4 rupees per ground.3. Section 123 defines annual value for the purposes of assessment under the Act, and when that tax is levied under Section 119 it will govern the assessment.4. Section 123 has, however, no reference to the alternative given to the President by Section 120. On land of the description mentioned in that section a fixed annual tax may be imposed irrespectively of the annual value calculated under Section 123. Probably in determining the fixed annual sum the President would be somewhat, but not altogether, guided by the profits which are or would be obtained from the land if such us...
Tag this Judgment!Empress Vs. Ishan Chundra De and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal847
Prinsep, J.1. The second defendant must clearly be acquitted on the authority of the judgment of this Court in the case of Empress v. Kola Lalang I.L.R. 8 Cal. 214 in which we concur.2. The first defendant has in our opinion been properly convicted whether under Section 60 or Section 53 is immaterial-see Queen v. Ishan Chunder Shaha 19 W.R. Cr. 34; Empress v. Baney Madhub Shaw I.L.R. 8 Cal. 207 : 10 C.L.R. 389. We would farther observe that for reasons stated by the Sessions Judge himself, he need not have referred the case of this prisoner. A necessity for altering a conviction from one section to another for cognate offences when the accused has not been prejudiced by any such error is no sufficient ground for a reference to the Court of Revision....
Tag this Judgment!Joshi Kalidas Sevakram Vs. the Dakor Town Municipality
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom399
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. The questions referred to the Court a rise out of a plaint filed by a house holder of the town of Dakor, seeking to, recover from the municipality of that town the sum of Rs. 2, Which he alleges to have been levied from him in payment of a house-tax illegally imposed on the inhabitants. The first question is-whether the plaint is barred by Section 86, Act VI of 1873, under which Act the tax was imposed and levied. That section provides that no action shall be brought against the municipality for anything done, or intended to be done, under the Act, until the expiration of one month after a notice in writing stating with reasonable particularity the cause of action; and every such action shall be commenced within three months next after the passing of the final order by the municipality or officer having power to pass such order, and not afterwards. It appears that the plaintiff, on receiving a bill from the secretary of the municipality demanding payment of...
Tag this Judgment!Kajo and ors. Vs. Fuseehun
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal15
Mitter, J.1. This case was once before this Court, and was remanded to be retried with reference to the observations made in the remand judgment.2. The proceeding in the lower Court was commenced by a suit under the provisions of Act IX of 1861 brought by Mussamut Kajo, the mother of Fuseehun, claiming the custody of her four grandchildren, i.e., the children of Fuseehun. One of these children is a boy, and the other three are girls. They are all admittedly under age.3. The District Judge finds that the boy is over seven years of age, and the eldest girl, Beebee Sulima, is nearly twelve years old, and has arrived at puberty in the sense in which that term is used in the Mahomedan law.4. There was a counter-application made by Abu Saleh and Abu Mahomed, their uncles, and Mussamut Sobi, their father's mother, in which they opposed Mussamut Kajo's claim, and set up their right to the guardianship of these minor children.5. The Judge has found that the other two girls, viz., Surah and Habi...
Tag this Judgment!Abdool HosseIn Vs. Lall Chand Mohtan Dass
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal36
Mitter, J.1. The question in this appeal is, whether a part proprietor of an estate is competent under Section 38 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869 to apply for measurement of its lands after making the remaining proprietors parties to the proceeding. The plaintiff in this case had a fractional share in a certain estate. He applied for measurement of its lands under the aforesaid section, making his co-sharers defendants, alleging that they had colluded with the tenants. His application was allowed by the Collector. On appeal, the District Judge, relying upon a ruling of this Court, in Baba Chowdry v. Abedooddeen Mahomed I.L.R. 7 Cal. 69 has reversed the order of the lower Court, holding that it had no jurisdiction to order a measurement on the application of a fractional owner of an estate.2. It is contended before us that the ruling quoted is not applicable, inasmuch as it is not clear from it that all the proprietors were made parties in that ease.3. It seems to us that this contention is w...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Saran Tato Vs. the Empress
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal877
Prinsep, J.1. There is no reason for questioning the correctness of the conviction of the appellant, and the sentence is not excessive. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.2. We think it necessary, however, to notice a misconception of the object of Section 75, Penal Code, into which the Sessions Judge has fallen. He seems to think that on a second conviction of any of the offences specified in that section he is bound to pass sentence thereunder, and he accordingly observes that, although for the offence committed (Section 457), the prisoner would be liable to imprisonment for fourteen years, he would under Section 75 of the Penal Code, by reason of a previous conviction, be liable to imprisonment for only ten years. He then states that 'it is for the prisoner's advantage, provided he is prepared to take his chance of transportation to admit a previous conviction.' The object of Section 75 is to provide for an additional sentence, not for a less severe sentence on a second conviction. ...
Tag this Judgment!Eranjoli Illath Vishnu Nambudri Vs. Eranjoli Illath Krishnan Nambudri
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad3
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The Subordinate Judge has himself examined seven witnesses in North Malabar, and has, by the issue of a commission, procured the examination of four witnesses in South Malabar. All these witnesses are described as Nambudris of note. Seven of them are Vaidikans, spiritual teachers, and one is a Shandi (priest). As such they would presumably be familiar with the usage of the country, for they direct the religious ceremonies attendant on adoptions and are consulted by their fellow caste-men on questions relating to such of their civil rights as are regulated by their personal law. With one exception all these witnesses agree that the adoption of a daughter's or sister's son is recognized by the customary law of North and South Malabar. They support their opinion by giving instances of such adoptions which have taken place within their knowledge, and they name persons alleged by them to have been adopted in pursuance of the custom as now holding the estates t...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopalachari Vs. Subbaraya Mudali
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad31
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J., Innes and Kindersley, JJ. 1. One Subbaraya Mudali was a tenant of lands in a Srotriem village, having a saleable interest in his holding. This interest he mortgaged to another Subbaraya Mudali, the respondent, who had obtained a decree for the enforcement of his mortgage when the Srotriemdar, alleging that default had been made in payment of rent, brought the tenant's interest to sale under the provisions of Section 38 of the Rent Recovery Act. The appellant became the purchaser. The respondent in execution of his decree procured the attachment of the property, and the appellant has failed to procure the removal of the attachment. It appeared that the existence of the arrear had been contested, and a decision passed in appeal in favour of the tenant. The Munsif held that the right of the mortgagee had been lost, because proceedings were not taken in the Revenue Court to set aside the sale within the period allowed for that purpose. He therefore decreed the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- 176
- 177
- 178
- 179
- 180
- Next ›
- Last »