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 Empress Vs. Irad Ally, Accused
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal869
Ainslie, J.1. We think the Deputy Magistrate was wrong to question the sanction given by the Magistrate. It was an order made by a superior Court, purporting to be made under a particular provision of law. Whether it was rightly or wrongly made was not for the subordinate Court to enquire into. The Deputy Magistrate was not sitting as a Court of appeal or revision to examine the mode in which the Magistrate of the district had dealt with the case in which he had sanctioned a prosecution under Section 211 of the Penal Code. He was bound to accept the sanction as valid, and leave the accused to question it before a competent Court, if so advised.2. We cancel the order of the Deputy Magistrate, and direct him to try the accused on the charges before him....
Tag this Judgment!Wahidoonnissa and ors. Vs. Roy Mohabeer Pershad Sahoo
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal128
Broughton, J.1. Roy Baboo Mohabeer Pershad Sahoo, the decree-holder in this case, obtained a decree against Mahomed Akran and against Farzund Ally, who was Mahomed Akran's surety. Mahomed Akran was made primarily liable under the decree, and Farzund Ally was made liable in the second instance. The decree was executed by the attachment and subsequent conversion into money of certain indigo and an indigo factory belonging to Mahomed Akran.2. Mahomed Nawab had a mortgage on this factory and on the indigo.3. The attachment in execution was made on the 15th of August 1875.4. The date of Mahomed Nawab's mortgage was the 21st of May 1875; it was in the form of a bond payable in two instalments, the first of which was due on the 8th of May 1876, and the second on the 28th of April 1877. The factory and all the indigo which might grow and be manufactured were pledged by the bond.5. Mahomed Nawab put in an objection to the sale of the factory and the indigo under the decree, and it was ordered t...
Tag this Judgment!Gosto Behary Pal Vs. Johur Lall Pal
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal836
Wilson, J.1. Answers to interrogatories are simply affidavits obtained in the way which the Code provides, and the party wishing to use them must put them in as his evidence....
Tag this Judgment!Miller Vs. Brindabun
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal946
Wilson, J.1. This is a suit brought by the Official Assignee, as assignee of the estate of Hurronath Mozoomdar and others, his partners, to recover damages for the removal by the defendants of flour and oil mills and steam-engine, boiler and other accessory machinery by which the mills were worked,--all which had belonged to the insolvents.2. The defendants justified the removal on the ground that they were purchasers of the things in question at a sale in execution of a decree of the Calcutta Small Cause Court.3. Several objections to the validity of the sale and removal were raised. First, it was said that such things are not goods and chattels within the meaning of Section 58 of Act IX of 1850. Now I think it clear, that the things in question, bedded and fixed as they were, were what are called in English law fixtures, that is to say, so annexed to the soil that they could not be severed and removed without substantial disturbance of the soil and a substantial change in the charact...
Tag this Judgment!Bajendro Lall Gossami Vs. Shama Churn Lahori and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal188
Jackson, J.1. The present suit was brought by Nandu Lall Gossami to recover joint possession, as before, of a portion of land within the town of Serampore, by setting aside the defendants' allegation of possession and by demolition of a structure called a nowbutkhana raised by the defendants on the land.2. The plaintiff, it seems, was entitled to an undivided eight-anna share of this land, the other eight annas belonging partly to the defendants and partly to one Gopal Chunder Gossami.It appears that at the time of the Doorga Poojah in 1876, the defendant Shama Churn had erected upon this joint piece of land the nowbutkhana in question which, as the Judge says, was intended for the accommodation during the festival of a band of musicians. The plaintiff objected to this erection, and thereupon a dispute arose, which came under the cognizance of the Joint Magistrate of Serampore under Section 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Joint Magistrate made an order that two cottas, o...
Tag this Judgment!Nanack Chand and anr. Vs. Teluckdye Koer and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal265
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case both the plaintiffs and the defendants appear to have taken mortgage-bonds from the same person, pledging the same property on the same day. Both subsequently obtained decrees upon those bonds against the mortgagor.2. The defendants, it is found by the Court below, got their decree first, and under that decree they bought the right, title, and interest of the mortgagor in the mortgaged property, and obtained possession of it.3. The plaintiffs afterwards, under their decree put up for sale and bought the right, title, and interest of the mortgagor; and they now bring this suit for the purpose of recovering the possession of the property from the defendants.4. This suit being, therefore, only for possession, on the strength of that purchase, the question is, whether the plaintiffs can prove a better right to such possession than the defendants.5. The Subordinate Judge has decided that the defendants' right is preferable, because their purchase of the mo...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Soorendro Nath Roy Chowdhry
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal106
Justice Wilson, J.1. This case gives rise to several questions of fact and law. Mr. Allen is right in his contention that the matter is not affected by Section 642 of the Civil Procedure Code, but by English law.2. This arrest is under a writ issued from the Small Cause Court, the Act constituting which has no corresponding section to Section 642 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the matter must be governed by English law.3. The question is, whether the defendant attending Court, under the circumstances under which this defendant attended, is privileged from arrest. The general doctrine is that parties are privileged. The proceeding under which the hearing came on is somewhat peculiar, and it is said that a defendant attending in a suit of this nature, under the circumstances which existed here, was not privileged. The suit is under chap. 39, and when the proceedings are under that chapter the writ is in a peculiar form, and the defendant is not allowed to defend without obtaining leave...
Tag this Judgment!Nistarini Dasi and Vs. Bonomali Chatterji and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal941
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiffs contend in special appeal that the lower Court's decision is erroneous in law. That having regard to the express stipulation in the potta of 1253 (1846) they are entitled to enhance the rent of the tenure without serving a notice upon the tenants under Section 14 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869.They rely on two decisions of this Court--Bhyrud Chunder Mojoomdar v. Huro Prosunno Bhuttacharjee. (17 W.R., 258) and Ram Narain Lall v. Gumbeer Singh (19 W.R., 188)--in support of their contention.The respondents on the other hand have cited before us two reported decisions--Burodakant Roy v. Sib Sunkuree Dossee (4 W.R., Act X Rul., 35) and Ekram Mundul v. Holodhur Pal (I.L.R., 3 Cal., 271), and also rely on:an unreported decision of the Court, dated 2nd January 1878, in special appeals, Nos. 921, 922 and 923 of 1877.On referring to these cases we find that there is a conflict in the decisions of this Court upon the point raised before us, and as the question involved is o...
Tag this Judgment!Doorga Doss and anr. Vs. Grish Chunder Mundul and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal494
Birch, J.1. The facts found in this case are, that the plaintiff's obtained a decree against the defendant No. 3 for arrears of rent of a durpatni tenure due up to Choitro 1282 (April 1876), and in execution of that decree brought the tenure to sale on the 7th November 1876. The sale-proceeds amounted to Rs. 1,471, and the plaintiffs' decree for Rs. 211-1-6 was satisfied from the sale-proceeds, the surplus of Rs. 1,259-14-6 being left in deposit in the Court. Subsequently the plaintiffs obtained another decree for the rent of the tenure from Bysack to Assin 1283 (April to October 1876) against the same defendant for the first half of 1283, and in taking out execution of that decree, caused the surplus sale-proceeds standing to defendant's credit to be attached. The defendants 1 and 2 held two decrees against the same defendant, and they also attached the surplus sale-proceeds in execution of their decrees. A rateable distribution of the sum in deposit was made by the Court between the ...
Tag this Judgment!Brojonath Mozumdar Vs. Ram Chunder Chuckerbutty and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal929
Jackson, J.1. In order to come to a clear and correct understanding of what the legislature intended in passing Act XL of 1858, it is necessary to refer to previous legislation on the subject.2. By Reg. X of 1793, which contained a body of rules for the guidance of the Board of Revenue as a Court of Wards, provision was made for the appointment, or confirmation, as the case might be (Section 21), of the guardians to landholders disqualified by minority or otherwise. The office of guardian was to be distinct from that of manager, but both offices might be united in the same person (Section 6).3. Reg. V of 1799, dealing with the case of persons subject to the jurisdiction of the. Zilla Courts, who died leaving heirs under age or incompetent, but not under the superintendence of the Court of Wards, declared that the guardian or nearest-of-kin, designated either by special appointment or by the law of the country as authorized to act for such heir, should not be obliged to apply to the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- Next ›
- Last »