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
In Re: Obhoy Chnadra Mookerjee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal78
Mitter, J.1. I am of opinion that the basis on which the jurisdiction of Criminal Courts under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is founded does not exist in this case.2. Section 145 says that, 'whenever a Magistrate is satisfied from a police report or other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists, &c;, &c;,' then a proceeding under this section may be instituted.3. In this case what happened was this: A police report was submitted to the Magistrate on the 8th November 1882, and in that report the police officer stated as his opinion that there was a dispute between the parties to these proceedings relating to a chur, and that in his opinion there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace. This opinion was based upon this ground: The police officer says that if one of the parties would attempt to collect rent forcibly from the ryots, there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace. Upon that, both the parties to these proceedings were called...
Tag this Judgment!MoidIn Vs. Chandu
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad273
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. There appears to be no provision in the Code for enforcing summarily a surety bond given under the section (349) and no appeal from an order refusing summary enforcement of the surety bond, and the only course open to the party who desires it should be enforced is to move the Court to put it in suit.2. Whether, under the circumstances, the suit would succeed we need not now determine.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Pottachi and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad161
Hutchins, J.1. In this case, two women were arrested as they were conveying more than a quart of toddy from the sub-renter's trees to his shop. There is no doubt that they come within the letter of Section 22, as they had no permit, but they were the sub-renter's servants, and acting for him, and their possession was that of their master. By Section 15 sub-renters are authorized to grant permits within the limits of their farms, and the place in question was within such limits, while the quantity conveyed apparently does not exceed that which a sub-renter's permit will cover. These sections were enacted for the protection of renters and sub-renters, and whatever they can authorize others to do, they can themselves do. We, therefore, agree with the District Magistrate that the conviction is bad, and accordingly quash it.2. The fines, if paid, must be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Chakrasahu
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad185
Kindersley, J.1. In this case one Chakrasahu was convicted under Madras Act, III of 1884, Section 21, and was fined Rs. 200. Of that sum, Rs. 47-8-0 were recovered by distress and sale of his movable property; and, as no more could be so recovered, he was sentenced to imprisonment for five months under Section 32 of the same Act.2. The Senior Assistant Magistrate set aside the sentence of imprisonment, being of opinion that Section 32 of Act III of 1864 did not authorise a sentence of imprisonment, when it appeared by actual distress and sale, as in the present case, that such penalty could not be levied in full. The Magistrate of the District refers the case for revision by this Court. The first case in which imprisonment is authorised by Section 32 of the Act is, 'if upon the return of such warrant it shall appear that no sufficient distress can be had whereon to levy such penalty, and the same shall not be forthwith paid.' This is exactly that case. There has been a distress, but th...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhammatha and ors. Vs. Kunhi Kutti Ali
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad233
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The father of the respondents having been sued by the appellant for her maintenance, entered into a compromise with her, whereby he agreed to pay her the sum of Bs. 36 on the 1st April in each year during her life, and a decree was passed in those terms.2. It may be the father was sued because he was the manager of the family property ; but this is not apparent on the face of the decree.3. The decree can be executed against the sons for arrears, which have accrued since their father's death, only as representatives of their father and until his assets are exhausted, it being of course understood that, on the father's death, the interest ho had in his lifetime in joint ancestral property lapsed, and would not be available as assets. We set aside the order of the Judge and direct him to reconsider the application in reference to the above observations.4. The appellant will have the costs of this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Arumugam Vs. Tulukanam
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad187
Hutchins, J.1. The petitioner has married a second wife, and on that ground alone the respondent, his first wife, refuses to live with him. The petitioner expressed his willingness to maintain her in his own house, but the Magistrate ordered him to pay her a separate maintenance on the sole ground that he had married again. As a Hindu the petitioner is not debarred from marrying a second wife, and the mere fact that he has done so does not entitle the first wife to a separate maintenance. The present case may be a hard one, but the law is clear.2. The order for separate maintenance is hereby quashed....
Tag this Judgment!Bada Vs. Hussu Bhai and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad236
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The land was appurtenant to the office, and the Government determined to sever it from the office and to allow the office-holder or office-holders for the time being to enfranchise it. The appellant, who was never the holder of the office, could not have a claim on its emoluments.2. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Sengotha and anr. Vs. Ramasami
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad241
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. An application for an order under Section 499 can only be made by a plaintiff after the summons has been served and after reasonable notice of the intention to apply for the order has been given in writing to the defendant. The term 'may' must be read with the words 'at any time,' and does not import that it is competent to a plaintiff to apply before service of summons, or to evade the condition of notice.2. In this case the order was applied for on the 10th July and made on the 11th ex parte without notice to the defendant and without any proof to support it, while the summons was not served till the 25th July. The order under Section 499 is discharged with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Balaji Vs. Ramasami
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad284
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. A decree had been passed against the defendant by the District Court on appeal. He applied for review of judgment and, in the meantime, for stay of execution. The Court stayed execution on terms that security should be furnished for the due execution of the decree. The respondent was offered and accepted as a surety. The application for review was dismissed and the decree-holder now applies to execute his decree against the surety. He cannot do so under Section 253, for, assuming that section can be extended to appeals, it applies only to cases in which the security has been given before the passing of the decree. We must dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Thunji and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad163
1. The accused were severally charged under Act I of 1882, Section 26, with possessing salt earth knowing it to be contraband. They admitted the possession of a substance which the witness described as saltish earth and the Magistrate finds not to have been a saline efflorescence or deposit, but earth impregnated with salt.2. The accused stated they had collected this substance to bleach cloths, and the Magistrate considered their statements to be true and found they had no intention of manufacturing salt. He, therefore, acquitted them. The section on which the charge was framed prescribes a penalty, inter alia, for the manufacture of contraband salt and for the possession of such salt. The term 'manufacture' is defined in Section 2 as including collection, and the term 'salt' as including 'salt earth,' meaning thereby natural saline deposits and efflorescence, and earth salt,' that is, salt made from 'salt earth' or 'from any earth naturally impregnated with salt.' The Act, it will be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 186
- 187
- 188
- 189
- 190
- 192
- 193
- 194
- 195
- 196
- Next ›
- Last »