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
Jitendra Nath Sarcar and anr. Vs. Biswanath Bagchi and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal201
Sen, J.1. This appeal is by the defendants in a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that as reversioners they have title to the land in suit and for the setting aside of an alienation made by the last limited owner Katyani Devi in favour of her daughter Sita-labala and for the setting aside of the transfer by Sitala Bala to the other defendant Jitendra Nath Sarkar. The plaintiffs' suit has been decreed by both the Courts below and the defendants have appealed.2. The defence taken was that the transfer by the last limited owner was for legal necessity and therefore conveyed the entire interest to Sitalabala. The next defence was that Sita-labala's transfer to the defendant Jitendra Nath Sarkar was for valid consideration and therefore unassailable. A further point taken was that the question of legal necessity could not be reagitated in this suit inasmuch as that question had been raised and finally decided in a former suit in which the present parties were also parties; in...
Tag this Judgment!The Government of the Province of Bombay Vs. Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR635
Madhavan Nair. J.1. These are consolidated appeals from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated April 3, 1941, confirming in the first Appeal (A. No. 211 of 1938) the decree of the first class Subordinate Judge of Thana dated April 30, 1938, in Suit No. 207 of 1936) hereinafter called the 'Vile Parle suit' from the village to which it relates), and in the second appeal (A. No. 216 of 1938) reversing the decree of the same date of the said Subordinate Judge in suit No. 115/34 (hereinafter called the 'Juhu suit' from the village to which it relates).2. These appeals arise out of two suits which were brought against the Secretary of State for India, now represented by the Province of Bombay, hereinafter called the Government (appellant in the first and respondent in the second of these appeals-defendant), by Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia (respondent No. 1 in the first of these appeals and appellant in the second plaintiff No. 2) and the other trustees of a tru...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishna Timmappa Shetti Vs. Hanumant Patgavi
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR757
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal from order are these. The plaintiff is a nephew of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff's father died in about 1925, leaving behind him his widow, a minor son the present plaintiff and his brother defendant No. 1. In 1932-1933, the plaintiff's uncle defendant No. 1 took up a ferry contract, and as he did not pay the amount of the bid, the undivided property of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 consisting of certain mulgeni rights in Survey No. 16 of Phattubele village was brought to sale and was eventually purchased by defendant No. 2 at an auction sale. In 1940, the plaintiff who was even then a minor brought a suit, No. 217 of 1940, through his guardian mother asking for a declaration that the auction sale held in 1985 in favour of defendant No. 2 was not binding upon the plaintiff's half share in the suit property and for an injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from taking the income of his share of the property. The suit was dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Harisingji Chandrasingji Vs. Ajitsingji Chandrasingji
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR770
Chainani, J.1. The appellants in these two appeals are illegitimate sons of Sardar Chandrasinghji Himatsinghji, who was the Thakore of Matar estate, which is a talukdari estate in Amod taluka in Broach District. He was a Rajput by caste. The respondent is the eldest legitimate son of Sardar Chandrasinghji, and succeeded to the estate on the latter's death on July 10, 1939. By custom the estate is impartible, and succession to it is governed by the rule of primogeniture. In 1943 the two appellants filed two separate suits claiming maintenance from the respondent. They stated in their plaints that their mother was in the continuous and exclusive keeping of Chandrasinghji, that there was a custom prevalent in Gujarat and in the Broach District according to which the junior members of the family and illegitimate sons were entitled to maitenance, and that they had, therefore, a right to recover maintenance from the estate, both according to custom and also according to law. The defendant di...
Tag this Judgment!Hubert P. James Vs. Gulam HusseIn Pakseema
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR945
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay passed in its appellate jurisdiction dated October 4, 1945, in part reversing and in part confirming a decree of that Court passed in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction on December 22, 1944.2. The main question in this appeal is whether the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the suit, and the respondent, who was the defendant, were partners hi a restaurant business, or whether the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff in the business entitled to a share of the profits as remuneration for his services. The appellant also claimed from the respondent a sum of over Its. 8,000 alleged to be due in respect of food and other necessaries supplied to the respondent and his family from the business. This last claim failed in both the Courts in India and has not been raised before the Board. At the trial Bhagwati J. held that the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff; the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhmi Singh and anr. Vs. Mahendra Singh and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All501
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court arising out of a suit for possession by cancellation of a sale-deed dated 21st December 1931, executed by the plaintiffs' brothers Bhup Singh and Tilok Singh, defendants 5 and 6 respectively.2. The sale-deed was executed by those defendants in favour of one Jodhan Singh, father of defendants 1 and 2 and husband of defendants 8 and 4 for Rs. 2132-8-6. The items of the sale consideration were these:1. Rs. 1600 0 0 left with the vendee for pay-ment to one Kharak Singh due to him on a usufructuary mortgage made by the vendors on 23rd April 1928.2. Rs. 583 9 6 left with the vendee for pay-ment to the same person Kharak Singh on account of another mortgage dated 10th February 1929, made by the vendors in his favour, and3. Rs. 248 15 0 left with the vendee to dis-charge a decretal debt due by the vendors.--------------------Rs. 2432 8 6 Total.3. So far as items 2 and 3 are concerned, th...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Taro W/O Bur Singh Vs. the Crown
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1949CriLJ565
Harnam Singh, J.1. To appreciate the point of law involved, the facts of the case must be set out in some detail.2. It appears that on 1st June 1917, between 6 and 7 p. m, Hazara Singh, son of Atma Singh of village Muradpur was beaten very severely. Hazara Singh died of the injuries sustained and Sohan Singh, son of Bur Singh Jat of village Huradpur, district Ami'itsar was sent up for trial for the murder of HazaraSingh in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The case was to be tried as a summons case under the provisions of the Punjab Public Safety Act, 1947, and after the examination of Sohan Singh accused on 25th August 1947, the case was adjourned for trial to 3rd October 1947.3. In the meanwhile, Sohan Singh applied for bail and on act September 1947, he was released on bail of rupees ten thousand with one surety of the same amount. Deva Singh son of Sundar Singh, Jat of village Usman. Tabsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar, stood surety for the appearance of Soban ...
Tag this Judgment!Government of the Province of Bombay Vs. Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia and O ...
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1949PC143
Sir Madhavan Nair: These are consolidated appeals from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 3rd April 1941, confirming in the first appeal (A. No. 211 of 1938) the decree of the first class Subordinate Judge of Thana dated 30th April 1938, in suit No. 207/36 (hereinafter called the "Vile Parle suit" from the village to which it relates) and in the second appeal (A. No. 216 of 1938) reversing the decree of the same date of the said Subordinate Judge in suit No. 115/34 (hereinafter called the "Juhu suit" from the village to which it relates). [2] These appeals arise out of two suits which were brought against the Secretary of State for India now represented by the Province of Bombay, hereinafter called the Government (appellant in the first and respondent in the second of these appeals-defendant), by Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia (respondent 1 in the first of these appeals and appellant in the second Plaintiff 2) and the other trustees of a trust (plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Ranshah Bapu Vs. the Government of the Central Provinces
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1949PC140
Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur dated 28th August 1944, confirming a decree of the Additional District Judge, Chanda, dated 18th September 1939, and dismissing the appellant's suit. [2] The questions arising in this appeal are : (1) Whether the appellant has the right to levy bazar dues in Kurkheda market; (2) If not, whether the respondent is estopped from contesting such right. The Courts in India answered both questions in the negative. A question of limitation was also raised in India, but has not been raised before the Board. [3] The said market, held every Saturday, lies within the mauza of Kurkheda, which is a part of Palasgarh zamindari in Chanda District of the Central Provinces. The appellant is proprietor of the zamindari. In pre-British days the zamindars of Chanda District exercised a wide but ill-defined jurisdiction in different parts of the District subject to rendering tribute and services to the...
Tag this Judgment!Hubert P. James Vs. Gulam HusseIn Pakseema
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1949PC151
Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay passed in its appellate jurisdiction dated 4th October 1945, in part reversing and in part confirming a decree of that Court passed in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction on 22nd December 1944. [2] The main question in this appeal is whether the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the suit, and the respondent, who was the defendant, were partners in a restaurant business, or whether the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff in the business entitled to a share of the profits as remuneration for his services. The appellant also claimed from the respondent a sum of over Rs. 8,000 alleged to be due in respect of food and other necessaries supplied to the respondent and his family from the business. This last claim failed in both the Courts in India and has not been raised before the Board. At the trial Bhagwati J. held that the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff ; the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6660
- 6661
- 6662
- 6663
- 6664
- 6666
- 6667
- 6668
- 6669
- 6670
- Next ›
- Last »