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
Gurdial Singh S/O Ainchal Singh Vs. the Crown
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1949CriLJ568
Harnam Singh, J.1. Gurdial Singh, Jat, aged 35 years, has been, found guilty of the murder of Pritam Singh and convicted under Ss, 308/84, Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepore. Gurdial Singh has come up to this Court in appeal through Mr. Tek Chand and S. S. Jhanda Singh has appeared for the Crown.2. The prosecution case was that on 24th April 1947 at about sunrise the said Pritam Singh along with his siri Gurdial Singh mazhbi went to his field Leaving Gurdial Singh mazhbi near his cArticle Pritam Singh went to case him-self. Suddenly, Gurdial Singh accused, and Harchand Singh and Ajaib Singh abaconders, emerged from the bushes armed with spears and gandasas. Gurdial Singh accused and Harchand Singh were armed with spears while Ajaib Singh had a gandasa. They attacked Pritam Singh with their respective weapons and inflicted upon him a number of injuries. Gurdial Singh mazhbi rushed to the rescue of Pritam Singh and received injuries in ...
Tag this Judgment!Muppavarapu Kotayya and ors. Vs. Narahari Devaiah and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ233
Mack, J.1. First petitioner is a plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of land. Mesne profits were determined, after the decree, on a petition filed by him, for Rs. 260 and he was, on 16th April, 1946, the date on which the petition was disposed of, directed to pay additional court-fee on or before 23rd April, 1946. The District Munsiff made a rather unusual direction that if he failed to do, the petition would stand dismissed. Petitioner, after the re-opening of the Court after the recess, filed an application on 24th June, 1946, praying for extension of time on the ground of illness. This application, which was filed under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, was dismissed on 18th September, 1946, by the same District Munsiff, on the short ground that he had no power to extend time or to excuse the delay.2. The learned District Munsiff relied on a decision of Wadsworth, J., in Sripathi Baliah v. Ramayya : AIR1941Mad706 . That decision related to the setting aside of an ex part...
Tag this Judgment!Veeramachineni Seethiah Vs. Bode Venkatasubbiah and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ269
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Clark, J., dismissing an application by three share-holders of a private limited company known by the name of Sri Gopalakrishna Motor Transport Co., Ltd., for the winding up of that Company. The appellant was the first petitioner on the original side and he claimed to be the managing director of the motor transport company from 1st July, 1946. The other two petitioners, who are respectively respondents 12 and 13 in this appeal, were a shareholder and a director of the same company. This joint stock company carried on business as a bus operator in and around Bezwada. The application before the learned Judge was under Clause (vi) of Section 162 of the Indian Companies Act on the ground that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up by Court. Various reasons are alleged in the statutory affidavit filed in support of the application, which in essence, come to this, that the directors, far from working in harmo...
Tag this Judgment!Chennuru Sitharamamurthi Chetty and ors. Vs. Chennuru Guruswami Chetti ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ400
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal and the memorandum of objections arise out of a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Chicacole for reliefs in respect of an alleged partnership formed to work a salt factory called the Badjanapara. salt factory in the Naupada division, Vizagapatam district.2. In this Province the right to manufacture and sell salt is generally obtained by the grant of a licence issued by the Government subject to the rules under the Madras Salt Act of 1889 in pursuance of a lease of salt pans belonging to Government. The leases are usually for long periods, and in common practice are granted to the highest bidder or bidders at auctions held by the Salt Department, unless the Salt Department chooses to renew an expired lease already granted. In or about the later half of the year 1925, the Salt Department put up for auction the leasehold interest in a salt factory called the Badjanapara salt factory. Five persons namely Chennuru Appalanarasayya Setti, t...
Tag this Judgment!Dhurvh Dev (Minor) Vs. Kishori Lal
Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1949HP6
ORDERBannerji, C.J.1. This application comes before me by way of review from the judgment of the Ruler exercising the final authority in all judicial matters as Ijlas-i-Alia under Section 3, Mandi State Courts Act, I [1] of 2002 B.2. The learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner argues that it is competent for Chief Commissioner to entertain this review under Section 4 of the said Act. Though the Ijlas-i-Alia shall consist of His Highness the Ruler, His Highness may in his discretion determine and appoint a Judicial Committee to hear and decide such appeals, revisions or petitions as may, by order of His Highness, be sent for disposal.3. His Highness the Ruler had appointed a Judicial Committee which heard and decided the appeal and made their recommendation to His Highness.4. His Highness, however, did not accept the recommendation and himself decided the case which the learned advocate argues he could not do after having set up a Judicial Committee under Section 5 of the said Act;...
Tag this Judgment!Madhao Rao Narayan Rao Ghatate Vs. Iswardas Sheoratan Bagdi
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1949CriLJ932
ORDER1. The questions referred to us are:1. Whether the High Court has inherent powers to exempt an accused from appearance in Court beyond those contained in Ss. SOS and 610-A, Criminal P. C. and2. Is ML Saji v. Mt. Bhimi rightly decided ?2. The sections which deal with or are said to deal with the power to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused are Sections 205, 363 and B40A, Criminal P.C.3. Section 205, Criminal P. 0. only deals with the cases in which a Magistrate issues a summons. It thus does not cover those cases in which warrants are issued or the accused are j brought under arrest or the accused appears ' before any process is issued.4. Section 353, Criminal P. C, lays down that except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in presence of his pleader. It has been held in Emperor v. G. W, King, 14 bom. L. E. 236 : 15 I. O. 96: 18 cri. L. J. 464 In re Kandamani...
Tag this Judgment!Hansraj Singh and ors. Vs. Rex.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1949CriLJ958
ORDERWali Ullah, J.1. This is an application under B. 205, Government of India Act, 1935, for a certificate of leave of appeal to the Federal Court from the order passed by me in Criminal Appeal no. 185 of 1947 on 18th September 1948. It was filed on the 8oth September 1948. The petitioners were the appellants in the criminal appeal. The ground on which a certificate is prayed for is that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of 8.270, Government of India Act of 1935. In Paras. Nos. (4)(as amended by a supplementary affidavit) and (5) of the affidavit filed in support of the application, an at. tempt has been made to elaborate the ground On which this certificate is prayed for, It is to this effect;2. In Para (4) it is asserted that the appellants 1 to 7 were acting in their official capacity in the discharge of their duties when they com-mitted the acta complained of. In Para. (5) it is stated that in this case a question arises whether; Rule 270, Go...
Tag this Judgment!Hansraj Singh and ors. Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All632
ORDERWali Ullah, J.1. This is an application under Section 205, Government of India Act, 1935, for a certificate of leave of appeal to the Federal Court from the order passed by me in criminal Appeal No. 185 of 1947 on 13th September 1948. It was filed on the 30th September 1948. The petitioners were the appellants in the criminal appeal. The ground on which a certificate is prayed for is that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Section 270, Government of India Act of 1935. In Paras. Nos. (4) (as amended by a supplementary affidavit) and (5) of the affidavit filed in support of the application, an attempt has been made to elaborate the ground on which this certificate is prayed for. It is to this effect:2. In para (4) it is asserted that the appellants 1 to 7 were acting in their official capacity in the discharge of their duties when they committed the acts complained of. In Para. (5) it is stated that in this case a question arises whether Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P. Tirumal Rao Vs. T. Ranganatha Mudaliar and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ280
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. On the respondent's application under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946, the Additional Rent Controller, Madras, passed on 30th March, 1948, an order for eviction against the petitioner. The respondent took out proceedings to execute the order and went with the bailiff to take delivery of the premises on 22nd April, 1948. On that day the petitioner passed a letter to the respondent in the following terms:As you have brought a warrant of possession against me in the above E.P. for the ground-floor No. 93, Thagaraja Rao, Thyagarayanagar, I request you time for today and I assure you that I will give complete possession of the said place by to-night.2. The petitioner however did not give possession but filed an appeal and obtained an order for stay of delivery on 24th April, 1948. When the appeal came on for hearing before the Third Judge of the Court of Small Causes, the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not mainta...
Tag this Judgment!Arunagiri Goundan Vs. Vasantharoya Goundan and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ373
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in O.S. No. 39 of 1944 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem against a preliminary decree for partition passed therein. The suit was originally instituted by seventeen persons, but as the 13th plaintiff died pending suit, plaintiffs 18 to 21 were added as his legal representatives, and when the suit came up for hearing, there were twenty-one plaintiffs. There were six defendants. The suit for partition was based on the allegation that the plaintiffs and defendants were members of a joint Hindu family and the properties set out in the plaint schedule belonged to them as members of the family. The suit was contested only by defendants 1 and 3 who admitted the relationship set out in the pedigree filed along with the plaint so far as their relationship with plaintiffs 1 to 3 was concerned, but denied that plaintiffs 4 to 21 were related to them (defendants) in the manner set out in the pedigree. The contesting defen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6651
- 6652
- 6653
- 6654
- 6655
- 6657
- 6658
- 6659
- 6660
- 6661
- Next ›
- Last »