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
Kalu BIn Bhiwaji Vs. Vishram Mawaji
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom543
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. This Court, on the authority of the Calcutta cases Nanhoon Singh v. Tofanee Singh 12 Beng. L.R. 113 and Jeebraj Singh v. Inderjeet Mahtoon 12 Ben. L.R. 115 and of Bai Mahkor v. Bulakhi Chaku, (supra p 538) reverses the order of the District Judge and restores that of the Subordinate Judge with costs; but, in accordance with the course followed in the last-mentioned case, directs that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff in order that he may, if so advised, present the same in the proper Court....
Tag this Judgment!Narhar Govind Kulkarni Vs. Narayan Vithal
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom607
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. It is unnecessary to resort to the doctrine of factum valet (if it to at all admissible in such a case) to uphold the adoption made by Ambabai, the adoptive mother of the plaintiff (respondent).2. What may be or have been the right of Government to regulate adoption by the owners of principalities, in a point which it is unnecessary for us to consider. We have here simply to deal with the office of a Kulkarni and its appendant rights or vatan. No authority either in a text book of Hindu law nor in the reports has been cited to show that the sanction of Government to an adoption by a Kulkarni, or his widow, or by a co-parcener in a Kulkarniship, or his widow, is necessary to give it validity, or that Government has any right to prohibit or otherwise intervene in such an adoption. It has been argued for the appellant (the defendant) that Government ought to have a voice in such a matter in order to insure to itself a succession of suitable hereditary officers. No...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Sir Albert Sassoon and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom513
Charles Sargent, J.1. It appears from this statement of facts that the demised premises consisted of two portions marked, in the plan annexed to the lease, A and B, on the first of which an annual rent of Rs. 500 per acre was reserved, whilst on the latter, described as 'being at times covered by the sea,' a purely nominal annual rent of one rupee per acre was reserved--power, however, being given to the lessees to reclaim the same or any part thereof from the sea--in which case an enhanced annual rent of Rs. 500 per acre was reserved on the land so reclaimed. The question, therefore, whether the site of the dock, which is admittedly a portion of the demised premises marked 'B,' is liable to pay the enhanced rent of Rs. 500 or the originally reserved rent of one rupee per acre, must depend upon the answer to be given to the question, whether or no it has been reclaimed from the sea, within the meaning of the lease? It was contended for the lessees that the ordinary meaning of the expre...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress of India Vs. Diljour Misser
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal226
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case the prisoner has been convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder committed on the 24th May 1861, and sentenced to transportation for life. Act XVII of 1862, under which the prisoner has been tried and convicted for this offence, has been totally repealed by Acts, VIII of 1868 and X of 1872. It has, however, been contended that, notwithstanding this total repeal of Act XVII of 1862, the prisoner may still be tried and convicted under that Act by virtue of the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act (I of 1868). We have considered this clause, and upon the whole we think that it does not apply to the present case. The conviction, therefore, must be set aside, and the prisoner discharged....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chunder Nath Sen and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal293
Richard Garth, C.J.1. As the Magistrate states that riot or affray was imminent, and that ho considered that the direction he gave tended to prevent, and was likely to prevent, a riot or affray, and as the facts stated by the Magistrate show that there were some grounds for the opinion which he expressed, we think that lie had power, under Section 518 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to make the order complained of. This Court, therefore, cannot interfere with it under Section 15 of the Statute 24 and 25 Vict., cap. 104; nor can the Court interfere on any other ground, as by Section 520 the order made is declared not to be a judicial proceeding, however much it may infringe upon what are, or may be (irrespective of this section), the undoubted legal rights of the petitioners....
Tag this Judgment!Soudaminey Dossee Vs. Jogesh Chunder Dutt and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal262
Pontifex, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sues as widow of her deceased husband, Sreenath, for a partition of the estate formerly belonging to Ram Mohun, her husband's grandfather. Ram Mohun had executed a will dealing with this property. (The learned Judge read the clauses of the will set out, and continued) Under this will the plaintiff claims that, on the death of Umachurn, one of the testator's sons, his only son Sreenath, who survived him, became absolutely entitled be Umachurn's share, and that she, as Sreenath's widow, is now entitled thereto.2. This claim is resisted by the defendants, who are willing to admit that Sreenath became entitled under the original gift, but insist that his interest was defeasible under the gift over which I have read. It is, therefore, the interest of neither party to argue that the original gift to the male issue of the testator's sons is invalid as including objects too remote, or, in other words, objects to whom, under the law as now settled, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhonessur Kooer Vs. Roy Gooder Sahoy
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal337
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The judgment which I am about to pronounce is concurred in by Markby and Ainslie, JJ.1. We are of opinion that the periods of limitation prescribed in the 2nd Sched. of the Act of 1871 are to be computed subject to the provisions contained in the body of the Act. The schedules form a part of the Act, and must be read together with it for all purposes of construction.2. We think that the word 'suits' in the Act of 1871 was not intended to include 'applications.' In the Act of 1859 the word might have had a more extended meaning; but in the Act of 1871 a distinction seems to have been carefully drawn between 'suits,' 'appeals,' and 'applications'; each of these subjects being separately dealt with, and in different divisions of the schedule.3. It appears to us, however, that, in the special appeal which is the subject of this reference, the Courts below were wrong in refusing the application of the decree-holder upon the ground that she was barred by lapse of time. ...
Tag this Judgment!Reg Vs. Hanmanta
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom610
Melvill, J.1. In this case fourteen persons were tried in the Sessions Court of Thana for being concerned in the fraudulent cutting and removal of wood from the Government forests in Alibagh. They were all acquitted with the exception of the first accused, Hanmanta, who was convicted on two out of twenty-seven heads of charge. Against this conviction Hanmanta has appealed. On the other hand the Government of Bombay has appealed against the acquittal of Hanmanta on the other charges, and against the acquittal of twelve out of the remaining thirteen accused persons on all the charges. The appeal against Appaji, No. 14, was withdrawn at the commencement of the hearing, it being admitted that the evidence against him was insufficient for conviction. The Government of Bombay succeeded in serving a notice of the appeal on only six out of the remaining accused persons: and, therefore, it is only as against those six persons that we have been able to hear the appeal.2. At a very early stage of...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Mankeshwar Vs. Bhimrav Ravji and anr.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom577
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The case Tarachand v. Lakshman I.L.R. 1 Bom. 91 cited by the Assistant Judge is not any authority for his decision. There was not in that case any mortgage or other specific lien on the land created by the Mirasdar, Bhagu, or his predecessors in title, previously to his execution of the razinama in favour of Lakshman, the new occupant. The learned pleader for the respondents, in the present case, relied upon Bombay Act I of 1865, Section 2, Clause (j) and. Section 42, Clause 1st, as sufficient to support the title of the defendant Bhimrav Ravji, in whose favour Deoku (the first defendant) executed the razinama of the 5th July 1872 to the Jaghirdar Ravji Girdhar, father of Bhimrav Ravji. But there is nothing in Section 42 which would enable Deoku to relinquish more of the Mirasi estate than was left in her at the time of the razinama. She had already, on the 24th November 1869, by a duly-registered deed, mortgaged the lands in dispute to the plaintiff Ramchandra...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bomanji Burjorji Shroff
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom547
Green, J.1. The question for decision is whether, under the 3rd clause of Section 50 of the Indian Succession Act X of 1865, the two attesting witnesses received from the deceased a personal acknowledgment of his signature to the paper here propounded as the last will of Bomanji Burjorji Shroff. The two attesting witnesses state that, in the office of Messrs. Ralli Brothers, Bomanji produced a paper, saying it was his will, and asked them to attest it, which they did, and that this was the same paper which is now propounded as his will. Both say, one more positively than the other, that they then saw no writing on the paper which they attested. If Manickbai's evidence is to be relied on, this paper was written and signed by Bomanji at his own house before he took it to the office of Messrs. Ralli Brothers and there got the witnesses to attest it. The circumstance which, to some extent at least, threw doubt, in my mind, as to that evidence, was this: that an affidavit was proposed to be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »