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
Gopi Mohun Mullick Vs. Taramoni Chowdhrani
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal7
Garth, C.J.1. In answering the questions which have been referred to us by the Division Bench, it will be convenient in the first place to dispose of the last and most important of them, viz., whether the Magistrate was competent to pass the order complained of under the provisions of Section 518 of Act X of 1872.2. The order was in these terms:To Gopi Mohun Mullick, inhabitant of Paikara, Purgana Sherpur. Case--Unlawful assembly.It has appeared at the trial of the said suit, that a haut, having been established since 20 or 25 years at Taragunj, the estate of the said Chowdhrani, is duly held every week on Tuesday and Friday. At present you having set up a new haut at Nalitabari, which is quite close to the said haut, have fixed Tuesdays and Fridays, in other words, the days on which the Taragunj haut is held, for holding your newly-established Nalitabari haut. Since, by reason of the day fixed for holding this newly-established rival haut being exactly the days on which the Taragunj h...
Tag this Judgment!Behari Lall Mookerjee Vs. Mungolanath Mookerjee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal110
Jackson, J.1. The Judge of Hooghly, in making this reference to the Court, and in observing on the precedents which have been cited before him or brought to his notice, appears not to have remarked the change in the law introduced by Section 6 of the present Limitation Act. The corresponding section of the repealed Act IX of 1871 declared that--'When by any law not mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed, and now or hereafter to be in force in any part of British India, a period of limitation differing from that prescribed by this Act, is specially prescribed for any suits, appeals, or applications, nothing herein contained shall affect such law;' so that when by any special enactments, which continued in force, such as the Rent Act, any period of limitation differing from that prescribed by Act IX of 1871 was prescribed, then the provisions of Act IX were wholly inapplicable to such cases, and, therefore, the petitioner for review would be bound to present his application precisely w...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Maharaja of Burdwan Vs. the Chairman of the Darjeeling Municipa ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal194
Jackson, J.1. This case comes before us upon a petition of the Maharaja of Burdwan. He complains of an order passed by Mr. Abbott, Assistant Commissioner, with powers of a magistrate, at Darjeeling, under Section 532 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The subject to which this order related was a road, which apparently passes over the ground of the Maharaja and is claimed by the Maharaja as being his private road, and is not shown to have been in any sense belonging to or maintained by the public; but it is one over which it may be said the public have a limited right of way.2. It seems that Major Lowis, who was the Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling, in the course of his inspection of the station-roads, observed this road with gates or gate-posts at one end of it, and it struck him that the road was, or ought to be, a public thoroughfare. He, thereupon, consulted with the Municipal Commissioners, and the result was, that they authorized him to move in the matter, and, if necessary, tak...
Tag this Judgment!Jhotee Sahoo Vs. Omesh Chunder Sircar
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal1
Mitter, J.1. In this case we are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge was not competent to cancel the order of the District Judge by which the appeal of the appellant was allowed to be registered although filed beyond time. Under Clause b, Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1871, the District Judge, being satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not being able to present the appeal within the prescribed time, allowed it to be registered. No doubt this was an ex parte order, because at that time the respondent had not entered appearance, and on a proper cause being shown, such an ex parte order is liable to be cancelled by the Court which passed it; but the Subordinate Judge in this case is not competent to revoke the order of the District Judge. The decision cited by the Subordinate Judge does not support his view of the law. In that case the appeal was ordered to be registered by a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, and the case coming on for hearing, upon the obj...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Abdool and ors. Vs. Luckey NaraIn Mundul and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal132
Ainslie, J.1. The order of the Magistrate complained of is dated the 21st November 1878, and is in the following terms: 'Kine may be slaughtered in the place named in the ikrarnama. They cannot be slaughtered in any other place. A notice to this effect will be issued by beat of drum.'2. This order does not, on its face, purport to be made under Section 518; nor does it determine that there was any emergency, which made it necessary for the Magistrate to resort to the provisions of that section. It is either an order under Section 518, or it is not. If it is not under that section, it does not appear that there is any law which authorized the Magistrate to make it, and no prosecution under Section 188 of the Penal Code could be maintained for disobedience of it. If it is taken to be made under Section 518, the order is bad, inasmuch as it deals with the civil rights of persons without any limitation of time.3. The object of Section 518 is to enable a Magistrate, in cases of emergency, t...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. RohimuddIn Nazir Mahomed and Somiruddin
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal31
Ainslie, J.1. The Judge and assessors have concurred in finding the prisoners guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder committed in the course of a riot, and they have been sentenced under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149. Other persons had been previously tried and convicted on account of the same matter. They were convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 149, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on the 12th November 1878. In the present trial, the Officiating Judge has held that the case comes under the 5th exception of Section 300 of the Penal Code,--'culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death, or takes the risk of death, with his own consent.' He says, that if 'one of a body of professional lattials armed with deadly weapons is killed in a fight which these lattials have voluntarily entered into and provoked,--his death cannot be...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Durjan Mahton and ors. Vs. Wajid HosseIn and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal135
Ainslie, J.1. Who after stating the facts continued:The proceedings of the Deputy Magistrate have, no doubt, been very irregular, but it appears to us that the result arrived at is that which he must have arrived at if he had acted according to the law.2. The dispute in this case arose, in respect of certain property which admittedly was in the possession of the ryots up to a certain date; and which was claimed by Wajid Hossein and others as having been transferred to them by the execution of a decree for ejectment under the Rent Law on the 18th of November 1878. Both the parties refer to the same decree, one as showing his right to both crop and land, and the other as showing that the zemindar were entitled to the land only, and not to the crop. When, therefore, it became necessary for the Deputy Magistrate to consider what steps he should take to prevent any breach of the peace, it clearly was necessary for him to come to some determination as to the effect of the Munsif's decree, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Golap Chand Nowluckha Vs. Krishto Chunder Dass Biswas
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal314
Jackson, J.1. The plaintiff's suit has been dismissed on the ground of limitation, the Munsif not having taken the trouble to read with care the terms of the present Limitation Act, XV of 1877. He says: 'The plaintiff admits that his cause of action against the defendant accrued from the date of his discharge on the 6th Kartic 1283. This suit, brought after the lapse of one year from the above date, is evidently barred. The plaintiff cannot have extension of the time allowed by the special law for the realization of rent, because the Court remained closed on the 6th Kartic 1284, and subsequent dates. The new Limitation Act does not apply to cases under the Rent Law.'2. Now, it is quite inaccurate to say that the new Limitation Act does not apply to cases under the Rent Law. What the Act says is this: 'When by any special or local law, now or hereafter in force in British India, a period of limitation is specially prescribed for any suit, appeal, or application, nothing herein contained...
Tag this Judgment!Mohesh Chunder Sen Vs. Juggut Chunder Sen
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal212
Jackson, J.1. The plaintiff, who was the auction-purchaser of a taluk, sued to recover from the defendants, who were very numerous, a certain quantity of land. He claimed this land of course as having been a part of the originally settled estate.2. As to the title set up, the plaintiff, in the particular case which has been argued before us, relied chiefly upon a thakbust map, which bore the signature of one Anundo Chuckerbutty, who was the defendant's predecessor in title.3. The Judge (who reversed the judgment of the Munsif) refused to consider this thakbust map so adduced as being absolutely conclusive evidence, and so dismissed the plaintiff's suit.4. The plaintiff on second appeal before us objects, that the Judge has described this map as evidence quantum valet, which he seems to consider an inadequate application of the thakbust map as a piece of evidence; and it is contended, on the authority of a decision to which I was a party, that a survey map is sufficient, when there is n...
Tag this Judgment!Abdool Aziz Biswas Vs. Radha Kanto Kobiraj and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal226
Jackson, J.1. The appeal out of which this second appeal arises was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Jessore, on the sole ground that the document put in evidence by the plaintiff, and which is called a sale-certificate, was inadmissible by reason of its not being registered. In support of this view of the law, the Subordinate Judge refers merely to a ruling of the Madras High Court (6 Mad. Rep. Appx., XXXIX) relating to a sale-certificate under the late Code of Civil Procedure. That ruling appears to have been a decision not upon argument, though it is, of course, entitled to respect. But it is not necessary for us to say whether we concur with the Madras High Court in holding that a sale-certificate under the late Code of Civil Procedure is an instrument declaring an interest in property, and if the value of the interest so declared is one hundred rupees or upwards, that the registration of the instrument is compulsory under Section 17 of Act VIII of 1871, because the present Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- Next ›
- Last »