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
Shumbhoo Nath Poddar Vs. Luckynath Dey and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal920
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This was a Letters Patent Appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Field, confirming the judgments of both the lower Courts. The question depends upon what is the proper construction to be put upon Section 295 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The appeal was heard some time ago; but it stood over for a time, until Mr. Justice Field and myself had decided a case (second appeal No. 211 of 1882) which was supposed to involve a somewhat similar question under Section 246 of the Code.3. That case has now been decided Hury Dayal Guho v. Din Doyal Guho ante p. 479 but the decision will not much assist us in the solution of the present question, which is this: whether, when assets have been realized by sale or otherwise in execution of a decree, and more persons than one have prior to the realization applied to the Court, by which such assets are held, for execution of decrees for money against the same judgment-debtor, the assets are to be divided among such persons, although ...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Gulam HussaIn Saheb
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad71
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The term 'accepting' in Section 61 of the Stamp Act does not mean receiving but executing as an acceptor.2. As I understand the case, no offence was proved against the accused. He received a promissory note which was not duly stamped, and subsequently put it in suit. This does not constitute an offence under Section 61 of the Stamp Act. The Court will not, therefore, interfere....
Tag this Judgment!Amirunessa Khatoon and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Co ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal63
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case, which we heard yesterday, the suit was brought to set aside a revenue sale under Act XI of 1859.2. For this purpose the plaintiffs relied upon certain irregularities, which are said to have occurred in carrying out the sale itself: and also, as the plaintiffs alleged, that their tehsildar had colluded with the servants of the defendant No. 1, who was the purchaser, to make default in payment of the revenue so as to bring about the sale of the property, and enable the defendant No. 1 to buy it at a low price.3. The lower Court dismissed the suit upon the ground that the alleged irregularities were not (for various reasons) available to the plaintiffs; and with regard to the alleged fraudulent collusion the Court said this:It was argued that there was fraud on the part of the purchaser at the sale, inasmuch as he colluded with the servant of the plaintiffs, who made default in the payment of Government revenue; but under Section 33, Act XI of 1859, no ...
Tag this Judgment!Kirty Chunder Mitter Vs. Anath Nath Dey
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal97
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiff for a partition of a large estate of which he purchased an eight annas share in the year 1878, under the following circumstances:The estate in question was part of a much larger property situate partly in Calcutta, and partly in the Mofussil, which belonged jointly to the defendant and one Monmotho Nath Dey, in equal shares.3. By a mortgage made in the English form, dated the 12th of March 1869, Monmotho Nath Dey mortgaged to the defendant his half share in the estate in question, subject to the usual proviso for redemption.4. Default having been made in payment of the mortgage money, a suit was brought in this Court by the present defendant in the year 1873 against the mortgagor for the recovery of the principal sum and interest and for other relief.5. On the 7th of July of the same year the High Court made a decree by consent of the parties, by which an account was to be taken in the usual way, to ascertain the amount due f...
Tag this Judgment!Ralli Vs. Gau Kim Swee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal939
Norris, J.1. We are of opinion that the document is admissible. Mr. Jackson says that it is not proved to be a copy within the meaning of Section 63 of the Evidence Act, and that if it is a copy at all it comes under Sub-section 3. The witness says: 'The copy now produced is a copy of the original, and I know it to be so.' Mr. Jackson says that that is not sufficient to show that the document is a copy made from or compared with the original. I think the fair interpretation is that the witness knew it to be a copy made from the original from personal knowledge. Then was there an original document? The evidence shows that a letter was sent to the Boston Dye Wood Company, and that certain action was taken upon it.2. Then is this copy admissible in evidence? Section 65 says: 'Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases:(a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the d...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Commissioners of Negapatam Vs. Sadaya Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad74
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The word 'person' must be construed to include any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, where such construction is not repugnant to the context. The Schedule contemplates that the incidence of the tax on shop-keepers will be governed by the gross rental of the shop in which the business is carried on; and we apprehend it was not intended that each person should pay a license tax on the full gross rental of the shop.2. Trading companies are liable to pay the tax on trades; but it is not every member of the company, but the partnership that is taxed.3. The decision of the Bench is correct....
Tag this Judgment!Anandrav Bhikaji Phadke and Three ors. Vs. Shankar Daji Charya and Twe ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom323
West, J.1. The first point taken for the respondents in this case is that the suit was barred by limitation. The acts complained of are intrusions into a sanctuary, and what the plaintiffs seek is a declaration of their right, and an injunction against further intrusions on the part of the defendants. Such a suit is not barred by limitation merely because the first act specified may fall beyond the term of limitation. Intrusions and acts of worship, whether rightful or wrongful, are not continuous like possession, and there is not any provision of the law of limitation which prevents the establishment of a right connected with worship, or a religious institution, merely because the first interference with it may hare occurred more than three, or more than six, or twelve, years before the institution of the suit. If the acts of worship, or other proceedings of the defendants, in such a case have been so often repeated, and so consistent, during a long period that a presumption of a lega...
Tag this Judgment!Ramjankhan Vs. Ramjan Chamar
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal89
O'Kinealy, J.1. In this suit plaintiff sued for arrears o rent under Beng. Act I of 1879, called the ' Chota Nagpore Landlord and Tenant Procedure Act,' and for ejectment by reason of non-payment of rent. A preliminary objection has been raised that no appeal lies in such a suit, and in order to see whether an appeal is prevented it is necessary to look at the terms of the Act.3. Section 37, Clause 4, describes one class of suits that are triable under the Act--'all suits for arrears of rent due on account of land either rent-paying or rent-free, or on account of any rights of pasturage, forest rights, fisheries, or the like.' Then comes Clause 5, which says: 'All suits to eject any ryot, or to cancel any lease on account of the non-payment of arrears of rent, or on account of a breach of the conditions of any contracts by which a ryot may be liable to ejectment, or a lease may be liable to be cancelled.' Whejiwe turn to Section 88 we find, 'any person desiring to eject a ryot, or to c...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Panalal Vs. Bomanji Manoherji Modi and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom310
Birdwood, J.1. The first point for consideration is whether the document on which the suit is brought is one of which the registration was compulsory under Section 17 of Act III of 1877. It is an agreement or 'bargain-paper' as it is styled, to sell a House, and acknowledge the receipt of Rs. 1,000 from the purchaser as earnest-money. The vendors were to make, out a good title and to get approved, through the purchaser's solicitors, as being of good title, a deed of sale of the house, according to law, within a period of two months, and to deliver the same. In the event of a good title not being made out, the bargain-paper was to be null, and the earnest-money was to be returned. In Burjorji Cursetji Panthaki v. Muncherji Kuverji I.L.R. 5 Bom. 143 an unregistered document containing an agreement to sell, acknowledging receipt of earnest-money and providing for the execution of a deed of sale was held by West, J., to be one which, being unregistered, could not create or assign any inter...
Tag this Judgment!Tatya Vithoji Vs. Bapu Balaji
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom330
West, J.1. The Court in a case like the present is not at liberty to go behind a previous decree between the parties. This was ruled in Apaji Yadav Kulkarni v. Atmaram Daji Kulkarni Printed Judgments for 1882 p. 125.2. Here the decree, it is argued, gives effect to a contract in a mortgage in a particular way, and is, therefore, to be regarded as a contract subject to revision under Section 13 of Act XVII of 1879. But the distinction between a contract and a judgment is so great that the latter extinguishes the former, as Lord Selborne says in Lockyer v. Ferriman L.R. 2 Ca. 519; and that entirely different principles apply to them in case revision should be sought, was shown in Balkrishna Bhalchandra v. Gopal Raghunath I.L.R. 1 Bom. 73. Hence the revision and re-adjustment of the account made by the Courts below were not warranted. We have to look to the precise relation created by the earlier decree, and the extent to which it has been satisfied, and to these alone, to determine the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 173
- 174
- 175
- 176
- 177
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- 183
- Next ›
- Last »