Privy Council Cases

The King Vs. Kalicharan Pal and anr.

Court : Guwahati

1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Assam-Valley Districts under the provisions of B. 307, Criminal P. C, in a case tried by him with the aid of a jury which found the accused Umaoharan Pal and Kalicharan Pal not guilty by a majority verdict of 3; 2.2. The learned Sessions Judge disagreed with the verdict of the majority in so far as it related to the accused Kalieharan Pal, and made the present reference.3. While agreeing with the verdict of the jury in regard to the accused Umacharan Pal, we have been informed that the learned Sessions Judge did not pass a formal order of acquittal. This failure, however, has not prejudiced the accused Umacharan Pal who was on bail during the trial and was not remanded to custody after the verdict of the jury.4. Mr. Barman for the Crown has supported the reference and has argued that the accused Kalicharan Pal is guilty of an offence either under Section 304, Penal Code, or under Section 325, Penal Code, and that the verdict...

United Provinces Government Vs. Sri Har Nath

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1949All611

Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Banda affirming an order of a learned Munsif of that place, by which the latter had refused to stay a suit pending before him under Section 39(1) (v), Arbitration Act. After the plaintiff-respondent had filed the suit in the Court of the learned Munsif, the applicant, the U.P. Government, made an application on 25th August 1945, asking for time to file a written statement. Sometime later, the applicant applied to the Court under Section 34 of the said Act alleging that there had been an agreement between the parties to refer the matters in dispute to arbitration and that the proceedings should be stayed. This application was dismissed by the learned Munsif, and his order was affirmed in appeal by the learned Civil Judge. The present application in revision is against the latter order.2. The ground on which the Courts below disallowed the application under Section 34 of the A...

Bhagwan Das Chela Mahant Atma Das Vs. Moti Chand Ram and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1949All612

Agarwala, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the District Judge, Ghazipur, dated 5th December 1947, allowing an application for leave to sue under Section 18, Religious Endowments Act (Act XX [20] of 1863). The opposite party alleged in the application which he made to the learned District Judge that there was a public religious institution in Ghazipur known as Sangat Pushta Ghat of which the applicant before us, Mahant Bhagwan Das, was the Mahant, and that certain immovable properties were owned by the institution for the purposes of the trust but that the applicant before us was mismanaging the same. The opposite party claimed to be entitled to perform religious worship in the said Sangat and interested in its welfare and management. He therefore prayed that permission may be accorded to him to sue the applicant before us under the provisions of Section 14 of the said Act for his removal from the office of the Mahant. The learned Judge considered the matter b...

Qudrutullah Vs. Mohammad Kasim Khan and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1952All208

Malik, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal dismissing his application for setting aside a decree dated 28-3-1947. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,846-56 on 12-4-1946. Summons were served on the defendant after more than one attempt. On the first date of hearing he was absent when the Court directed that the proceedings against him should be ex parte. After that order, the defendant applied for time to file a written statement. Again after several adjournments the written statement was filed and issues were framed on 31-8-1946. The Court fixed 11th October for the final hearing of the case, but the case had to be adjourned as the Court bad no time and 11-12-1946, was fixed for final hearing. The plaintiff summoned his witnesses for that date. They were examined and after the plaintiff had closed his case the defendant was called uponto produce his witnesses. His counsel was not there and at the request of the defendant the learned Judge granted a short interval and dire...

Bira Naik and anr. Vs. Mahanta Sidhakamal Nayan Ramanuj Das

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1951Ori300

Ray, C.J.1. This is a pltf's appeal in a suit for recovery of possession or in the alternative for redemption of the disputed properties which have been mortgaged as a simple mtge. on 13-9-1913. The disputed lands are 19.87 acres of which 15.44 are tenanted & the rest are Khasdakhali lands. During the subsistence of the mtge. the deft, came into possession of the disputed lands under the provisions of Section 225, Orissa Tenancy Act, Binoe 27.11-1934. The present suit was instituted on 19.11-1943 with the prayer that the debt with interest at 12 1/2 p.c. p.a, that accrued due under Schedule 25 & the mtge. dues under the simple mtge. had been discharged by the date of the institution of the suit & that the pltf. was entitled to recover the properties from the deft, free of previous simple mtge. as well as of the charge created under Schedule 25. The alternative relief of the pltf. was that in case the mtge. still existed & the mtge. money or any part of it was still due he may be allowe...

Mrs. E.W. Evans Vs. Miss. Stella Benjamin

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1951Cal470

ORDERChakravartti, J.1. This rule is directed against a judgment & decree passed by a F. B. of the Small Causes Ct. whereby the Bench decreed a suit for damages brought by the opposite party against the petnr. on account of a certain defect said to have been discovered in an Electrolux purchased by the former from the latter. The opposite party was attracted by an advertisement, appearing in the Statesman of 17-4-1946. By that advertisement the petnr. invited purchasers for an 'Electrolux gas operated, Model L.22, 3 1/2 cubit ft. Inspection by appointment. Phone P. K. 2583.' On the same day the opposite party went to the petnr's. house with her brother & a person who is an employee of the Oriental Gas Co. Ltd., had a look at the machine & made the purchase for Rs. 850. Subsequently, she by a letter, sent through her Solicitor, on 9-5-1946 complained to the deft. that she had made a false representation as regards the serviceable character of the machine & that it was in a defective con...

Hafizul Ekbal and ors. Vs. Gopal Sardar

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1951Cal472

Harries, C.J.1. These are two petns. for revn. of orders mode by a learned Mag. under Section 144, Cr. P. C.2. The opposite parties presented petns. to the Dist. Mag. complaining that the present petrs. in these cases were interfering with their possession. It seems that these petns. wore not even verified but the Dist. Mag. immediately issued an order in these terms :'The usurping party may please be restrained immediately under Sections 144, 107, Cr. P. C. & asked to come through Civil Ct. & the party in possession may be allowed to continue in possession.'3. Strange to say, this order is in terms addressed to the Supdt. of Police. The latter on receiving this order also made an order in these terms :'S. D. O. will please issue order as directed & send to O. C. Harishchandrapur P. S. to take immediate steps.'4. Presumably the learned Dist. Mag. was acting under the second para, of Sub-section (1) of Section 144 which provides :'such Mag. any, by a written order stating the material f...

Chief Kwame Asante Vs. Chief Kwame Tawia

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1949PC171

Lord Simonds: This appeal, which is brought from the West African Court of Appeal, relates to the ownership of a considerable tract of land in the Kumasi State or Division of Ashanti, which is claimed on the one hand by the appellant the Chief Kwame Asante Tredehene on behalf of his Stool and on the other by the Chief Kwame Tawia on behalf of the Asafu (or Akwamu) Stool of Kumasi. The latter Chief was in the course of the proceedings substituted for his predecessor Chief Asafu Boakyi II Akwamuhene, by whom in the year 1936 they had been commenced. [2] The dispute, since it related to the ownership of land in the Kumasi State of Ashanti, was properly and solely cognisable by a Native Court, the Asantebene's Divisional Court, a Court of the "B" Grade, which was constituted under the Native Courts (Ashanti) Ordinance 1935 and will be referred to as "Court B." This Court, in which the Chief Asafu preferred his claim, on 1st April 1936 decided in his favour against the appellant. After an u...

Sayed Md. Abdullah Uraizee Vs. P.V. Rao

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR993

Tendolkar, J.1. These are a number of rules for writs of certiorari and prohibition and orders under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act against the Provincial Government, and also against the Secretary of the Health and Local Government Department and the Minister concerned, in respect of orders passed under Section 5 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. In a recent judgment of a division bench of this Court in Rao v. Advani : AIR1949Bom277 to which I was a party, we have held that no proceedings lie either by way of writs of certiorari or prohibition or under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act against a Minister or against a Secretary of the appropriate department in respect of the acts of the Provincial Government, and that writs of certiorari and prohibition can only be issued against the Provincial Government. The rules, therefore, do not survive as against any parties other than the Provincial Government.2. The question that has been raised as a preliminary issue for de...

Sayed Md. Abdullah Uraizee Vs. P.V. Rao and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1950Bom158

ORDERTendolkar, J.1. These are a number of rules for writs of certiorari and prohibition and orders under Section 15. Specific Relief Act against the Provincial Government, and also against the Secretary of the Health and Local Government Department and the Minister concerned, in respect of orders passed under Section 5, Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. In a recent judgment of a division bench of this Court; in Rao v. Advani 51 Bom. L. R. 342: A. I. R. 1949 Bom. 277 to which I was a party, we have held that no proceedings lie either by way of writs of certiorari or prohibition or under Section 15, Specific Relief Act against a Minister or against a Secretary of the appropriate department in respect of the acts of the Provincial Government, and that writs of certiorari and prohibition can only be issued against the Provincial Government. The rules, therefore do not survive as against any parties other than the Provincial Government.2. The question that has been raised as a preliminary...