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
The Bank of Hindoostan, China and Japan Limited Vs. Shoroshibala Debee ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal311
Kemp, J.1. The main point argued before us for the Bank, the plaintiff's, appellants, was, whether there had been a legal service upon the defendants. Section 8, Reg. XVII of 1806, provides, 'that whenever the receiver of holder of a deed of mortgage and conditional sale may be desirous of foreclosing the mortgage, and rendering the sale conclusive on the expiration of the stipulated period, or at any time subsequent before the sum lent is repaid, ho shall, after demanding payment from the borrower, or his representative; apply for that purpose by a written petition, to be presented by himself, or by one of the authorized vakeels of the Court, to the Judge of the shall or city in which the mortgaged land or other property may be situated; and that the Judge, on receiving such application, shall cause the mortgagor or his legal representative to be furnished, as soon as possible, with a copy of it, and shall at the same time notify to him, by a perwanna under his seal and official signa...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Empress of India on the Prosecution of Malcolm Vs. Gasper and o ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal278
White, J.1. I have, in the course of the argument, stated my views so fully that it is unnecessary to do more than recapitulate the reasons for my decision.2. Mr. Phillips, on behalf of the prosecution, applies, on affidavit, for one of two orders--either for a rule under Section 147 of the High Courts' Criminal Procedure Act (X of 1875), calling on the Magistrate to show cause why these proceedings should not be transferred to this Court for hearing and final determination; or for a mandamus to compel the Magistrate to commit on a charge of being a member of an unlawful assembly under Section 141 of the Penal Code.3. When the case came before me on the first occasion, I was informed that the Police Magistrate, having heard the evidence, did not disbelieve the facts proved, but thought that they did not amount to the offence with which the defendants were charged, and, therefore, declined to commit them for trial. When I heard that such was the nature of the case, I requested Mr. Phill...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Jyadulla
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal436
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We are of opinion that an appeal from an order of acquittal is within time if presented within six months from the date of the order of acquittal. The sixty days' rule does not apply.[1][1] Ed Note. In 'Reg. V. Dorabji Balabhai' (11 Bom. Rep. P. 117) it was held, that Section 272 of Act X of 1872 must be read by itself....
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Burah and Book Singh
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal64
Markby, J.1. Two persons, Burah and Book Singh, have been convicted on a charge of murder by the Deputy Commissioner of the Cossyah and Jynteeah Hills and sentenced to death. The sentence was commuted to transportation for life by the Chief Commissioner of Assam on the 23rd April 1876.2. On the 9th July, 1870 the officer, in charge of the Kamrup jail forwarded to this Court petitions of appeal from these prisoners, unaccompanied by copies of the judgment.3. The first question which arises in the case is, whether the High Court has any power to entertain these applications; and this question is one of so much importance that it has been referred to a Full Bench, and has been on two occasions very fully argued.4. The Cossyah and Jynteeah Kills comprise a considerable tract of country on the eastern frontier of Bengal, and they contain a population which, in 1862, was estimated at 120,000. The Jynteeah Hills were formerly under the independent Rajah of Jynteeah. The Cossyah Hills were div...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector of Thana Vs. Bal Patel
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom110
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The plaintiff (respondent) alleges himself to be a Villager of Veluk in the district of Thana, and in virtue thereof by his plaint prays that it may be declared (inter alia), not only that he has a right to graze his cattle within the limits of Mouje Veluk but also within the limits of any other village of the district of Thana. The claim to graze his cattle in villages other than Veluk, is, on the very face of it, preposterous, and on scrutinizing his claim to graze his cattle in the village grazing ground of Veluk, we perceive that it is quite as ill-founded as his alleged right so to utilize the grazing commons in the other villages of the district of Thana. It is admitted that he is not the owner of a single square foot of ground in the village of Veluk, but it appears that he had erected a hut on public ground belonging to that village, where he sojourns for a few months while his cattle are engaged in exhausting the grass set apart for the real villagers....
Tag this Judgment!Jamal Walad Ahmed Vs. Jamal Walad Jallal and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom633
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. This suit is brought for a declaration of the right of the plaintiff to be Kazi of the taluka of Havri in Dharwad, and to recover certain fees appertaining to that office received by the first defendant from the second and third defendants, and to restrain the first defendant from disturbing the plaintiff in that office.2. The plaintiff claims under sanads of 1049 Hijri A.D.1639, and 1074 Hijri A.D. 1663, purporting to be granted by the Bijapur Government to persons whom he alleges to have been his ancestors. Those sanads rather treat the grantees as Kazis already than assume to create them Kazis, and confer land and other benefits upon them in respect of a musjid established, or to be established by them, and for light/ing the same, anchor the reading of prayers and sacred books, as well as performing the usual duties of Kazis, and would appear to contemplate the maintenance of the musjid and the reading of prayers, and performance of the duties of Kazis, as w...
Tag this Judgment!Choonee Lall Vs. Bhimul Doss Alias Lall Baboo
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal379
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This case raises precisely the same question which was decided by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Delhi Parshad v. Thakur Dial I.L.R. 1 All. 105 and we feel bound, having regard to the weight of authority, to decide in accordances with that decision, that, under the circumstances stated in the case, the interest of the deceased brother in the family property ought, in the event of a partition, to be divided between his nephew and his two brothers in equal shares.2. This point was distinctly decided by the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut in the year 1802 in the case of Duljeet Singh v. Sheomunook Sing 1 Sel. Rep. 59 and Mr. Colebrooke was one of the Judges who decided it. The same rule has been laid clown since by other authorities, and is recognized by the Lords of the Privy Council in the case of Katama Natchiar v. The liajah of Shivagunga 9 Moore's T.A. 539 at p. 611.3. We do not find any authority conflicting expressly with those decisions; and w...
Tag this Judgment!Bhubon Mohini Dabea Vs. Chunder Mohun Roy and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal389
Markby, J.1. We think on the face of these proceedings we must hold that the suit is barred by limitation. The mortgage is dated the 24th of September, 1850; the default was made on the 24th September, 1854; notice of foreclosure issued on the 7th February, 1860. It is not shown on what date the notice was served, but the foreclosure must have become absolute some time before the 26th June, 1861, because the case was struck off on that date with permission to bring a regular suit, as appears from the plaint. Therefore, the title of the plaintiff must have become absolute at least as early as the 26th June, 1861, and the suit would be barred on the 26th June, 1873.2. Now, on the 6th February, 1873, the plaintiff' presented a petition to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis to recover possession. She was ordered to appear on the 1st March, and she did not do so. She was again ordered to appear on the 15th June, and she did not do so; and the case was struck off' so far as the application ...
Tag this Judgment!The Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Bheecunram Napit Alias Bheecun Napit
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal291
Macpherson, J.1. I am of opinion that Section 147 gives mo no power to grant this application. The object in fact is to appeal against an acquittal. But Section 147 does not provide for such an appeal. It contemplates the transfer of a case before disposal, or interference on behalf of persons aggrieved or injured by an order of the Magistrate. But there was no intention to give power to interfere in order to set aside an acquittal. It' it had been intended to give that remedy, it would, no doubt, have boon expressly given, as in the Criminal Procedure Code and in the Presidency Magistrates' Act, IV of 1877. One section of the lattor Act (Section 181) really shows that Section 147 was intended to apply only whore there has boon a conviction, for it makes notice to the Government prosecutor necessary before an application can be made under Section 147.2. Even, however, if I had the power to interfere, I would not exercise it in such a case as this....
Tag this Judgment!Nilmoni Singh Deo Vs. Raghumoni Audhikary
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal393
Markby, J.1. It seems to us that the decision of the lower Appellate Court is wrong. The suit is brought to recover a specific sum of money which the plaintiff says the defendant No. 1, in collusion with defendant No. 2, without his knowledge and consent, had obtained from the collectorate. The defendants pleaded limitation. The Court below thinks that the case is governed either by Article 90 of the 2nd Schedule of the Limitation Act or by Article 48. Article 90 provides for a suit by a principal against his agent for moveable property received by the agent and not accounted for. The plaintiff does not sue the defendant as his agent; he does not admit that the defendant was his agent. On the contrary, he denied that the defendant was his agent, and the Court below does not find that the defendant was so. Therefore it cannot possibly be brought under that head. Article 48 clearly provides for a case in which a suit is brought to recover moveable property acquired by means of a criminal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »