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
QamaruddIn HusaIn and ors. Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All616; 1949CriLJ929
ORDERKaul, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the Additional City Magistrate, Lucknow, under Section 147, Criminal P. 0.2. On 29th January 1947, Ch. Muehtaq Ahmad made an application before the City Magistrate of Lucknow alleging that his wife and his mother-in-law owned two houses in mohalla Goluganj, and complaining that the way by which access was had to these houses, and the drain by which water from these houses flowed into the main drain on the public road were being obstructed by the present petitioners, Qamruddin Hasan, Shamshuddin Hasan and Waziruddin Hasan. He further alleged that when a protest was made against the obstruction the present petitioners threatened to use violence and accordingly there was an apprehension of a breach of peaco. Ha prayed for proceedings under Section 147 being taken in. respect of the right of way and the right to flow water through the drain to which reference was made in the application. The City Magistrate, Mr. B. D...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagabat Charan Jena and ors. Vs. Ram Narayan Mohanty
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori271
Ray C.J.1. This is pltf's appeal in a suit for a declaration that the award passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, is not binding: against them & for the consequential relief of restraining the society from executing the award against them.2. The pltfs. 2 & 3 are brothers & the pltfs. 1 & 4 to 1 are cousins of one Kali Charan Jena. In this appeal it is not controverted that they were members of a joint Hindu Mitakshara family with Kali Charan (deft. 2) at all material times. Kali Charan is a member of Routmandarini Co-operative Society of which deft. 1 (resp. 1) is the Secretary. Kali Charan, as a member, took a loan of Kb. 6C0 on 3-9 29 for the purpose of paying off Certain debts incurred for purchase of lands-a purpose recognised under the bye laws. In the Loan Register, he got certain persona as suraties, who undertook, the liability in case Kali Charan did not pay the loan to the Society. Ultimately, Kali Charan. not having been able to pay, there was a reference by the S...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.A. Murugappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Arunachala Goundan and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ449
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. Defendants 2 to 5 are the appellants in this second appeal. The first respondent instituted the suit to recover various sums of money from the different defendants. In execution of the decree in O.S. No. 1614 of 1933 of the District Munsiff's Court, Coimbatore, the plaintiff purchased a four-fifth share in two lots of property. That decree was obtained by defendants 1 to 5 against one Sinnia Goundan and his four sons. Sinnia Goundan was adjudicated an insolvent in I.P. No. 180 of 1933, Sub-Court, Coimbatore, prior to the institution of the suit; and the suit was instituted against him with the leave of the insolvency Court, and his four sons were also impleaded as parties to the suit. A decree for money was passed in that suit on the 21st March, 1934. Two lots of property were brought to sale on the 19th March, 1935, and the two lots were purchased in the auction sale held on that date by the plaintiff, lot I for a sum of Rs. 1,030 and lot II for Rs. 376, i.e., ...
Tag this Judgment!D. Jayalakshmi Alias D. Jayam Vs. R. Soundararajan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ511
Bell, J.1. This suit is one for nullity under the Special Marriage Act III of 1872 as amended. The petitioner was born on the 28th of January 1929, and is therefore today under 20 years of age. Her father died in 1938 and since then she has lived with her mother and latterly with her mother in her maternal uncle's house. In 1947-48 she was attending school in Coimbatore and through one of her school mates met the respondent, a young man now aged about 22. On the 24th of March, 1948, the parties appeared before the Registrar and went through a form of marriage purporting to be in accordance with this Act. At that time the petitioner was just over 19 years of age and the respondent about 21.2. The question is whether the form of marriage was correct under the provisions of the Act. It is necessary to refer to one or two sections. The first is Section 2 which lays down the conditions upon which marriages under the Act may be celebrated. The parties are Hindus and at the time of the marria...
Tag this Judgment!Sairu Seikh and anr. Vs. Shyamlal Sardar
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal200
Harries, C.J.1. These are two petitions for revision of orders passed by a learned Magistrate restraining the petitioners from entering upon two disputed plots of land. The Magistrate purported to act under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. It seems clear that the disputed land had been held by the opposite party and it is admitted by the petitioners that it was at one time held by the opposite party as a service tenure-holder. According to the opposite party it has been held fey his ancestors for about hundred years or so.3. According to the petitioners the opposite party ceased to perform the services required and abandoned the property. He left the service of the Zamitidar and neither cultivated nor possessed the land for some time. According to the petitioners the 'zamindar then settled the land with them and they entered into possession and ploughed the land and later sowed paddy on it.4. In the month of August the opposite party seems to have made a complaint and a...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Biharilal Kalacharan
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR564
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. [His Lordship, after dealing with questions of fact arising in the case, proceeded :] Mr. Lulla has then raised a rather interesting point of law. According to him even assuming that the prosecution have established their case against the accused no offence in law has been committed. According to Mr. Lulla under Section 213 it is only when the accused actually screens any person from legal punishment that the offence is complete. According to him the mere promise to screen a person from legal punishment and to receive gratification for that promise does not constitute an offence. We are unable to accept that contention. Looking to the plain meaning of the section, apart from any authority, it seems to us that the mischief that is aimed at by the Legislature is the accepting of a gratification for concealing an offence or screening any person from legal punishment or not proceeding against any person for the purpose of bringing him to legal punishment, and not the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhdeo Ahir and anr. Vs. Baldeo Ahir and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All536
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendants' application in revision against a decree passed in proceedings for redemption under Section 12. U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act.2. The claim for redemption was made in respect of five mortgages of different dates made by the same person against different members of a joint Hindu family. It is now agreed that not only the mortgagor under the various mortgages was the same, but also the mortgagees under them had joint interests in the mortgagee rights.3. One of the pleas taken in defence was that the civil Court before which the suit had been filed had no jurisdiction but that it was the revenue Court which alone had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the said Act. The point taken was that as the mortgage money under every one of the five deeds was below Rs. 100 (Rs. 500?) it was only the revenue Court which could entertain the suit. The Courts below repelled this plea on the view that the aggregate mort...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Rao Vs. Gouri Shanker
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All538
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. We do not propose to interfere in this revision. The parties made a joint statement that a sum of Rs. 300 was dug under the two mortgages. Moreover, the facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts of the two other cases that we have just decided. In this case a sum of Rs. 300 was borrowed under a mortgage dated 12th May 1882, and some property was given in security. On the security of the same property there was a further advance of Rs. 231-9-9, and this second advance was tacked on to the first advance and the mortgage deed provided that the mortgagor would not be entitled to redeem the first mortgage without paying the amount, due under the second mortgage. The two documents, therefore, practically constituted a single transaction.2. We therefore dismiss this application, but make no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!R. Krishnamurthy Vs. S. Parthasarathy and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ412
Horwill, J.1. The respondent is the occupier of the house No. 403, Mint Street, Madras, and the appellant is the owner of that house, who had leased it to the respondent on a month to month tenancy. The respondent failed to pay rent for July, 1947, before the end of August of that year; and so the appellant, without giving notice under Section 111(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, filed an application before the Rent Controller, Madras, under Section 7 of Madras Act XV of 1946 for the eviction of the respondent. The Rent Controller, after giving notice to the respondent, came to the conclusion that the respondent had not paid his rent within the time allowed by Section 7(2) and so ordered his eviction. The question of the non-issue of notice under Section 111(A) of the Transfer of Property Act was not raised. The respondent exercised his statutory right of appeal under Section 12 of the Act and filed an appeal in the Court of Small Causes, Madras. Again no reference was made to the f...
Tag this Judgment!The Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Radhakrishna Dev and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal222
Sen, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff the Corporation of Calcutta and it arises out of a suit for the recovery of arrears of rates for the period between the fourth quarter of 1930-1931 to the third quarter of 1934.2. It will be necessary for me to set out certain events which have happened in the conduct of this suit. In the suit as originally framed the plaintiff claimed that the arrears of rates were due in respect of premises No. 31 Elgin. Road. There was a claim for one lump sum against all the defendants and for a declaration of a charge with respect to premises Not 31 Elgin Road. Prior to the trial of the suit the plaintiff was asked to admit certain facts by the defendants and pursuant to this application the plaintiff admitted that premises No. 31, Elgin Road had been sub-divided into 12 different premises prior to the period for which the rates and taxes were claimed and that these 12 different premises were held separately by the different defendants. The learned Munsif ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6657
- 6658
- 6659
- 6660
- 6661
- 6663
- 6664
- 6665
- 6666
- 6667
- Next ›
- Last »