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
Shama Soondari Debi Vs. Raj Chunder Roy
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal583
White, J.1. The appellant, who was the principal defendant in the first Court, appeals against a decree of the lower Appellate Court, reversing a judgment in his favour passed by the first Court.2. The respondent, who was the plaintiff in the first Court, and states herself to be a pardanashin woman, has sued the appellant and another defendant, who is a Court-peon, to recover compensation for causing her to be arrested in execution of an ex parte decree which the appellant had obtained against her in the Court of the Munsif of Shahazadpur.3. The suit in which the ex parte decree had been pronounced was brought by the appellant to recover from the respondent Its. 200, alleged to be lent to her for the marriage expenses of her son, and was based upon a 'roka' alleged to be executed by her. In the plaint in the present suit she charges that the ex parte decree was obtained by the appellant secretly and collusively, and without the service of a summons upon her; that the decree was subseq...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Act Xviii of 1869 and of the Uncovenanted Service Bank (Limited ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal830
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the Board of Revenue, North-Western Provinces, have not taken a correct view of the provisions of the Stamp Act. Before we look at Section 15 to see what instruments under the head of 'receipts' are exempt from duty, we must first look to Scheduleii to see whether the instrument in question is by Section 4 Chargeable with duty. It could only be chargeable under Article 7 if it were 'a receipt or discharge given for or upon the payment of money in satisfaction of a debt.'2. If, therefore, the Rs. 300 was paid in this instance by Mr. Robertson to Captain Cotton's account otherwise than in satisfaction of a debt, it would not be chargeable at all; and we find nothing in the facts stated or upon the instrument itself to show that it was paid in satisfaction of a debt.3. But even assuming that it was so paid, we consider that the document in question was not a 'receipt or discharge' within the meaning of the Act, because it was not given to the party who ...
Tag this Judgment!Empress Vs. Mannoo Tamoolee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal696
Morris, J.1. The confession made by the prisoner on the 17th November 1878 must, I think, be treated as a confession recorded under the provisions of Section 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prisoner was arrested by the Police on the afternoon of the 16th, and carried early the next morning before the Deputy Magistrate, Mr. White, who was then at a place (Bankipore) outside the limits of the division which he had charge. Mr. White recorded the prisoner's confession, and attached to it the certificate required by Section 122. It is clear from this that Mr. White considered himself to be acting under the terms of that section. Subsequently Mr. White returned to Barh, within the limits of his own division, and, having power to do so, took up the case against the prisoner, conducted the preliminary enquiry, examined the prisoner as prescribed by Section 346, and finally, on the same date, the 20th November, committed him for trial before the Court of Session.2. The confession of the...
Tag this Judgment!Elahi Buksh Vs. Marachow and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal825
Ainslie, J.1. In this case the suit was instituted when Act VIII of 1859 was in operation, namely, in September 1877, and a decree was passed after that Act was repealed and the new Code of Procedure was in operation, namely, on the 2nd of February 1878. An appeal against that decree was made, and on that appeal coming on to be heard, neither the appellant nor his pleader appeared, and the appeal was dismissed. The Judge who dismissed the appeal stated, when he did so, that he was aware that the appellant's pleader was a lunatic.2. The appellant afterwards applied to have his appeal restored, but the Judge, giving no reasons, rejected the application. The appellant in this application stated that, having engaged a pleader, he felt secure, and did not think it necessary to appear in person. The order dismissing the appeal in the first instance was made on the 31st of May 1878, and it is stated by the Judge that it was made under Section 556 of Act X of 1877. The application for its rest...
Tag this Judgment!Surgadass Vs. Wahidunnessa and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal39
Garth, C.J.1. We think that there is no ground for this appeal, and that the Court below has come to a just conclusion. The first and main point raised by the appellant is, that there is no sufficient evidence to make Mir Haider Ali, the ancestor of the defendants, liable upon the bond in question. Now the first witness called by the plaintiff was a mookhtar in the employ of Mir Hadi Hossein, the uncle of Mir Haider, who lived close by him, and was in the habit of transacting his business, and borrowing money for him by means of bonds. This witness says, that he received from Mir Haider's karpurdaz, Ali Akbar, a blank paper signed and sealed by Mir Haider, and stamped with a bond stamp sufficient to cover Rs. 16,000; and that, by the instructions of Mir Hadi Hossein, he drew up the bond in question upon this paper for Rs. 16,000, having no doubts of the correctness of the transaction. It then appears clear from the evidence, that Rs. 16,000 was duly paid by the plaintiffs to Ali Akbar,...
Tag this Judgment!Harbuns Sahai and ors. Vs. Bhairo Pershad Singh and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal259
Ainslie, J.1. The appeal was filed on the 31st of August 1878, and is from an order dated the 13th of July 1878, setting aside a sale of land in execution of a decree, which decree was made in November 1875. The sale was set aside on the ground of irregularity causing substantial injury. The first application for execution of the decree was made on the 12th of November 1877, after the new Civil Procedure Code came into operation. It is objected that no appeal lies, on the ground that the case is governed by Act VIII of 1859, and that Section 257 of that Act (the old Procedure Code) enacts that an order setting aside the sale shall be final.2. It is contended, on the other hand, that the order is appealable under Section 588(m) of the new Code, which gives an appeal. It appears to us that the appeal lies. The opinions recorded by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Jackson in the Pull Bench case of Runjit Singh v. Meherban Koer (I.L.R., 3 Cal., 662) support this view, and we see no reason...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Goods of Sir John Wemyss
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal721,(1879)ILR4Cal725
Pontifex, J.1. None of these authorities go to the extent of showing that where a will has been made, memoranda in a book can be treated as a codicil.2. All the memoranda in the book appear to have been made after the date of the will. One memorandum is dated the 11th January 1878, and says: 'My will is in an iron safe in my house, whereby I have given to my brother David,' &c.; All the other memoranda are in January 1877. The memorandum dated the 11th January 1878 sets up the will entirely.3. On this ground also that I do not think the memoranda are testamentary, I must refuse probate of them.4. Application refused. Administrator-General's costs of application to be paid out of the estate....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Matter of the Sarawak and Hindustan Banking and Trading Com ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal704
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that this rule should be discharged. We are asked to review our former judgment, and virtually to set it aside, upon the ground that, although no notice of the appeal was in fact given to the respondent within three weeks from the date of the order appealed against, that was not the fault of the appellant, but of the officer of this Court, and that the appellant has done all that he was bound to do by merely lodging his appeal within three days from the date of the order.2. Now it is perfectly true that the 141st section of Act X of 1866 does present some difficulty in this respect, because the appellant's right of appeal under that section is made to depend upon a notice being given, not by himself, but by an officer over whom he has no control.3. It is probable that the legislature, when they passed the Act, did not foresee this difficulty. Section 141 corresponds with the 124th section of the English Joint Stock Companies' Act of 1862 (25 and 26 Vict., ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Goods of Hewson
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal770
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Mr. Evans has argued the case before us on behalf of the Administrator-General, and has directed our attention to the several enactments which bear upon the question, as well as to the practice which has prevailed in the other Presidencies since the passing of Act XIII of 1875.2. After considering his argument, I have arrived at the conclusion, that grants of administration to an Administrator-General must still be limited to his own Presidency, and that those grants are not affected at all by the Act of 1875.3. It seems to me to have been the intention of the legislature, that grants of administration to the Administrator-General should be regulated entirely by the Act of 1874. 4. By the 66th section of that Act it is provided that 'nothing contained in the Succession Act, 1865, shall be taken to affect the rights, duties, and privileges of the Administrators-General of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay.'5. Then it is very important to observe, that Act XIII of 1875 doe...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Golam Lall Vs. Beni Prosad
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal27
Ainslie, J.1. The decree in this case was made on the 13th January 1873 against the respondent. It was put into execution in that year, and there were further applications made from time to time, the result of which has been that the judgment-debtor has obtained the consent of the decree-holder to periodical postponements for periods of six months or so, on the condition of paying him interest at the rate originally of Rs. 18 per cent., and subsequently of Rs. 24 per cent. In each of these, I think certainly in the later petitions, it has been the practice to state the amount due under the decree at the date of the petition, and it has been specially agreed that that amount as principal with interest thereon should be paid. At last, some time in February 1877, an application was lodged by the decree-holder, whether as a fresh application for execution of decree or for continuing proceedings, is immaterial. On the 15th of May 1877, being the date fixed for the sale of the debtor's prope...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- Next ›
- Last »