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
Fakirchand Motichand Vs. Motichand Hurruckchand
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom438
Latham, J.1. The plaintiff in this case alleges that he and his father, Motichand Nathoo, were jointly entitled to four houses in Champagully as their ancestral property; that his father carried on separate business as a shroff, and stopped payment on the 18th, and filed his schedule on the 17th of January, 1879 having in the interval made a fictitious equitable mortgage of the said four houses to the defendant; that his father died in December, 1881; and that on the 22nd of March, 1882, Mr. Lynch, then acting as Official Assignee, was induced by the misrepresentation of the defendant to sell and convey to him the said four houses for the sum of Rs. 24,000, being an utterly inadequate consideration, from which sum the debt claimed by the defendant from the insolvent's estate was deducted. He prays that the said mortgage and sale may be declared of no effect as against him; and that he may be declared entitled either to the whole, or a part, of the said four houses. The defendant denies...
Tag this Judgment!Arzan Vs. Rakhal Chunder Roy Chowdhry and the Secretary of State for I ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal214
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiff has a dwelling house in Burrisaul, in which he and his family have lived for a great many years; and he claims a right of way in respect of that house to and from the high road which runs from east to west through the village.2. On the 2nd of Assin 1285 (17th September 1878) the defendant No. 1 obstructed this right of way by commencing to erect a pucca stable upon the land, whereupon the plaintiff took proceedings in the Criminal Court; but the Magistrate refused to interfere, because he considered it a question to be tried in the Civil Court.3. The defendant No. 1, who is the lessee of the land under the Government, denies the plaintiff's right of way, and the Collector who appears for the Secretary of State, the defendant No. 2, also virtually denies it.4. It appears that the land over which the alleged way passes belongs to one Sherif Hossein. He let it upwards of thirty years ago to one Ijjutullah, and Ijjutullah, after holding it for some six o...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanashamdas Goorsamull Vs. Joharimull Kedarinath
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom431
Bayley, Acting, C.J.1. Joharimull Kedarinath, a prisoner on the civil side of H.M.'s Common Jail in Bombay, by a petition, dated the 1st August instant, stated that he had been arrested in Suit No. 37 of 1883, brought on the ordinary original civil jurisdiction side of the High Court, under a warrant of arrest before judgment on the 3rd February, 1883, and had been since then undergoing imprisonment on the civil side of the jail; and be submitted that, under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, he would become entitled to his release on the 2nd August instant. He stated that he had, however, been served with a warrant of arrest after judgment in the above mentioned suit on the 28th July last (which, we find was marked for the levy of Rs. 2,831-2-9), had been produced before the sitting Judge in chambers, and had again been committed to jail from the date of the decree, which was passed on the 6th March, 1883. He then submitted that, under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Co...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatramana and anr. Vs. Thir Singh and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad280
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The ruling in Krishna Reddi Govindu Reddi v. Stuart I.L.R. 1 Mad. 192 construes the Act as conferring on the Government power at any time to enlarge the period during which a suit may be brought to contest the award. The order enlarging the time had not been obtained when the previous suit was filed, and therefore that suit might have been at once rejected, and was necessarily dismissed. It could not be determined on the merits. The order has now been obtained, and we must assume it has been obtained on sufficient grounds. There is now nothing to debar the Court from entertaining the suit. The Government enjoys under this Act the unique power of extending the period of limitation in such cases, and all that was decided in the former proceeding was that the ordinary period had expired and had not been extended.2. The decree of the Lower Appellate Court is set aside and the case remanded for trial. The costs of this appeal will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Ram Coomar Ghose Vs. Prosunno Coomar Sannyal and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal106
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the District Judge was right in allowing to the respondents the costs of translation and printing in the High Court. These costs do undoubtedly form a necessary part of the costs of the appeal to the Privy Council; and we find that in practice the Privy Council have been in the habit, when they allow the costs of an appeal, of leaving the amount to be ascertained by the High Court. The only costs which are assessed in the Privy Council Office are those which are incurred in England.2. This is explained in the case decided by Mr. Justice Markby; Saroda Prasad Mullick v. Lachmiput Singh 9 B.L.R. Ap. 23 : 18 W.R. 89 which seems to be a direct authority in favour of the respondents.3. The appeal will be dismissed with costs, which we assess at two goldmohurs....
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Sri Gajapati Radhikapatta Mahadevi Garu Vs. Sri Gajapati Radha ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad96
1. The appellant, Radhika Patta Mahadevi, and the first respondent, Radhamani Patta Mahadevi, are the widows of a Hindu family, which had originally consisted of two brothers, Gopinadha and Krishna. Of these, Krishna had died first, and, upon the death of the surviving brother, Gopinadha, his widow, the appellant, took exclusive possession of the taluk of Tekkali which he had held, and of which the land now in litigation forms a part. But her right to exclusive possession was questioned by the two widows of Krishna, and by two illegitimate sons, and there was litigation in the family.2. By the decree passed by the High Court on appeal, a fifth share was awarded to each of the five claimants, of whom the first respondent, Krishna's junior widow, was one. From this decree an appeal was preferred to the Privy Council {see I.. L.R. 1 Mad. 290 who raised the appellant's share from one-fifth to one-fourth. Before the appeal to the Privy Council was decided, the first respondent, Radhamani, w...
Tag this Judgment!Sama Rayar Vs. Annamalai Chetti
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad164
Kindersley, J.1. The plaintiff having obtained a decree of the Civil Court of the Native State of Pudukottai against the defendant and another person, on an hypothecation executed in favour of his father, has brought this suit against the defendant, who now resides in British territory, to recover the balance remaining due under the decree.2. The District Munsif upon the authority of Bhavanishanker Shevakram v. Pursadri Kalidas I.L.R. 6 Bom. 292 dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit would not lie upon the decree of a Civil Court of a Native State.3. That decision was reversed by the District Judge who held that the suit would lie and accordingly remanded it for trial.4. This second appeal rests on the ground that such a suit would not lie, and this is the sole question for determination. It does not appear that the Governor-General in Council has authorized, under Section 434 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the execution within British India of the decrees of the Civil Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnasami Pillai and ors. Vs. Rangasami Chetti
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad112
Kindersley and Hutchins, JJ.1. This was a suit to recover from an undivided family a sum lent to the two eldest sons for the purchase of indigo. Those two, the first and second defendants, gave a promissory note for the amount, but the note is not admissible in evidence, and the plaintiff sues, not on the note, but for money lent.2. The first objection taken is that such a suit cannot be brought where a note has been given, and Sheikh Akbar v. Sheikh Khan I.L.R. 7 Cal. 256 was relied upon. It appears to us that this case falls within the first class of cases described in Sir RICHARD GARTH'S judgment. The cause of action 'for money lent' was complete in itself before the giving of the note, and defendants' request and the payment by plaintiff, which constitute the cause of action, can be proved independently of the note.3. The second objection is that the seventh defendant, the father, should not have been made liable, but we understand the lower Courts to have found that the money was ...
Tag this Judgment!Muttammal Vs. the Bank of Madras
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad115
Kernan, J.1. Subbu Chetti, a native inhabitant of the Presidency town of Madras, obtained an advance from the Bank of Madras upon the security of the deposit of certain Government promissory notes. He died on the 1st of December 1882 without leaving a son or guardian or any undivided coparcener or other male heir, but leaving one widow only, the plaintiff in this suit, and two infant daughters. The debts he owed were trifling and have been paid. He was a man very well known in Madras, where he spent his life, and at his death was dubash of Arbuthnot & Co. He had not any assets, effects or property outside Madras town. His widow, the plaintiff, is a daughter of Mr. Ramasami Chetti, one of the Vice-Presidents of the Madras Municipality. By letter of the 18th December 1882 to Madras Bank, Ramasami Chetti informed them of the death of the deceased, and by letter of the 19th of December 1882, the Secretary to the Bank replied.2. By letter of the 24th January 1883, Ramasami Chetti, on behalf...
Tag this Judgment!James Bevis and ors. Vs. C.A. Turner and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom484
Scott, J.1. I am asked in this case to make a final order as to costs. When I gave judgment, I allowed the Official Assignee time to recover the costs from the creditors of the insolvent's estate, who, he supposed, had guaranteed the costs of the suit: It appears now that he was mistaken as to the existence of that guarantee, I am not surprised at his mistake after reading the correspondence that passed between him and his attorneys. But the question I have now to decide is whether the Official Assignee must still be held liable. I do not think the current of decisions leaves me any discretion in the matter. Pitts v. La Fontaine L.R. 6 Ca. (P. C) 482 is the last reported case on the subject. Ex p. Angerstein L.R. 9 Ch. 479 is there adopted by the Privy Council as the law on this point. The rule there laid down is that a trustee in bankruptcy (who is equivalent to the Official Assignee) is liable in the same way as any other party to costs. If success is doubtful, he must obtain an inde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 182
- 183
- 184
- 185
- 186
- 188
- 189
- 190
- 191
- 192
- Next ›
- Last »