Privy Council Cases

In Re: Paramban Mammadu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1951Mad737

Horwill, J. 1. The four applts & three others who were acquitted by the lower Ct were charged by the Ses J. of South Malabar under Section 120B read with Section 302, I. P. C., of conspiring with P. W. 10 to commit the murder of one Ramasimhan. There was also a charge under Section 148 of being armed with dangerous weapons & rioting. They were further charged under four separate counts for the murder of the said Ramaslmhan, his brother Narasimhan, the wife of Narasimhan, & one Raju Iyer, a Brahmin cook of Ramasimhan. These four persons will be referred to during the course of the judgment as deceased Nos. 1 to 4 respectively. The learned Judge found accused 1 only guilty of conspiracy & the four applts guilty under Sections 147 & 34, read with Section 302, I. P. C. on all the four counts. He sentenced the four applts to death &, as already stated, acquitted the other three.2. The motive for the offence is said to have been the enmity borne by the Moplah community in general & the seven...

Nagendranath Karmakar and anr. Vs. Jotish Chandra Mukherjee

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1952Cal221

Gopendra Nath Das, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendants in a suit for ejectment and for recovery of mesne profits and compensation for damages done to the demised ffremises.2. The inception of the lease dates back to the year 1942 when the defendant No. 1 wrote a letter to the plaintiff agreeing to hold the demised premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 26/-. The letter recited that the tenancy would be determined by one month's notice. Subsequently thereto, the defendants took a lease of an additional room and agreed to pay additional rent. The terms of the lease continued as before. The plaintiff served a notice to quit on defendants Nos. 1 and 2 requiring them to vacate the premises by the end of September, 1946. The notice recites that the defendant No.1 is the tenant of the premises, that the defendant No. 2 had paid certain sums towards the rent of the premises and that as a matter of abundant caution, the notice to quit was also being served on the defendant No. 2. As the ...

Tarun Sen Deka and ors. Vs. the State

Court : Guwahati

Ram Labhaya J.1. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of the learned Chief Justice and my learned brother Thadani J. heard the petitions of 14 persons detained by District Magistrates under the Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act 1947 (Assam Act v. [5] of 1947). The petitions were all Under Section 491, Criminal P.C. The order of the Bench disposed of 12 petitions. In the case of the two petitioners, namely, Bijoy Kumar Das and Sukbomoy Chakravarty, the learned Judges could not agree as to the appropriate orders and directed that these cases be placed before a third Judge. The decision of two more petitions under 6. 491, Criminal P.C. turns on the same question which arises in the aforesaid petitions. These are NoSection 17 and 19 of 1948 and they have also been included in the reference. This order will dispose of all the four petitions.2. Both Bijoy and Sukhomoy were ordered to be detained by separate orders of the District Magistrate of Goalpara, The orders were passed on si...

Abdul Rahim Khan Vs. King Emperor

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1949CriLJ838

ORDERMemon, J.1. The applicant, Abdul Rahim Khan of Betul was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Hs. 60 under Section 19 (f), Arms Act, by the First Class Magistrate, Betul; and his appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Betul, He has now come up in revision to this Court.2. The prosecution case was, briefly stated i to the effect that on 16th September 1947 when his house was searched by the police, a live cartridge was found in an almirah in the front room of the house. The applicant in examination admitted that the cartridge, Article A, had been found in his house and seized from him on the relevant date by V. W. Matapurkar (p. W. i), Sub-Inspector, but in his written statement, which was filed 4 months later, he represented that the house was divided into 2 separate portions and that Article A had been found in the portion occupied by the widow and children of his deceased brother Abdul Hamid Khan who was the licence-holder of a gun, This belated plea was not ...

Taqi Mirza Vs. Rex

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 1950CriLJ6

Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. One Taqi Mirza, aged 18 years according to the first information report, appeals against Iliad conviction Under Section 807, Penal Code and sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad.2. The occurrence had taken place at 6-45 p. 1$. on 8th November 1946, in Mohalla Nai Basti, Allahabad City. A report of the incident was lodged by one Chhotelal Ahir, a milk yendor, at the Kotwali Police Station at 7 P. M. the Bame evening, in which the appellant and another 'young Muslim were mentioned as his assailants.3. The allegations in the said report were that, when Chhotelal, after supplying milk, was returning from Muthiganj to his house and had reached a place known as the 'Tuta Pull' (damaged culvert) in Mohalla Nai Basti, two Muslims, both aged 18 years, Burrounded him, that one of them, namely the appellant, attacked him with a knife, that the appellant, whom he knew, lived in the Muslim League Office of the Mohalla and that ...

Khazanchi Prasad and anr. Vs. Babu Ram and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1949All559

Malik, C.J.1. This is a civil revision against a decree for ejectment passed by the learned additional Munsif of Ghaziabad on 21st July 1948. Babu Ram and Ors. plaintiffs, filed a suit for ejectment of Sultan Singh and Khazanchi Prasad on the ground that Sultan Singh was the tenant of a shop which had been rented to him under a registered lease dated 14th March 1940, that Khazanchi Singh was his sub-tenant, and that the lease having expired on 20th January 1947, the defendants were not entitled to remain in possession of that shop. It was alleged in the plaint that the suit was being filed with the permission of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Baghpat. The suit was resisted on various grounds but the learned Additional Munsif held against the defendants and decreed the suit for ejectment, but he reduced the amount of damages from Rs. 575 to Rs. 173.2. We have been informed by the learned Counsel that an appeal against this decree has been filed in the lower appellate Court. As there w...

Giridhari Mohanty Vs. Abdul Khan and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1951Ori41

Ray, C.J.1. It is a defendant 1's appeal in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the disputed property which constitutes an occupancy holding in Touzi No. 3019 in the district of Cuttack. Defendant 5 was the original owner of the occupancy holding. He had usufructorily mortgaged the same to defendent 2 and father of defendant 3 who were recorded mortgagees. Ultimately, defendants 6 to 9 purchased the holding in execution of the mortgage decree before 1938. An ex parte decree in a rent suit was obtained against the recorded tenants on 27-8-1941. The decree was put into execution on 3-1-1941 in which an order to issue attachment against the holding was passed on 4-4-1941. The attachment was effected on 30-4- 1941. Before effectuation of the attachment and after the commencement of the execution, that is, on 25-4-1941, the plaintiff purchased the holding and it can be premised without any controversy that by such purchase he acquired the right of occupancy and all...

Hari Datta Vs. the District Magistrate and Suprintendent

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1950CriLJ227

ORDERRamabhadran, C.J.1. This is an application in the nature of habeas corpus Under Section 491, Criminal P.C.2. The petitioner, Hari Datta, was arrested under Section. 3, Punjab Public Safety Act, as applied to Ajmer. Merwara, under the orders of the Adl ditional District Magistrate. He was ordered to be detained in custody for a month. That period has expired and the Provincial Government acting Under Section 3 (4), has directed his detention in custody until further orders.3. Mr. B. D. Sharma for the petitioner urged that the arrest and detention of the petitioner were illegal as the Additional District Magistrate had no authority to act Under Section 3, Punjab Public Safety Act. It was argued that it was only the Provincial Government or the District Magistrate who could have acted Under Section 8. Reliance was placed on Prabhu Lal v. Emperor A.I.R. (31) 1944 Nag. 84 : 45 or. h. 3. 296 wherein it was held that an Additional Distriot Magistrate may have all the powers of the Distri...

T.D. Ramayya Pantulu, Vs. Kutty and Rao (Engineers), Ltd. and

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)0LLJ13Mad

Horwill, J.1. On the 5th March 1948, by G.O. Ms. No. 1115, the Government issued a notification which runs:Whereas industrial disputes have arisen between the workers and managements of certain Engineering firms and Type foundries in the Province of Madras and whereas industrial disputes are apprehended in the rest of the Engineering firms and Type foundries in respect of certain matters;...in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7(1) and (2) read with Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.... His Excellency the Governor of Madras hereby constitutes an Industrial Tribunal consisting of one person, namely, Sri T.D. Ramayya Pantulu...and directs that the said industrial disputes be referred to that Tribunal for adjudication. 2. It is seen that in this notification there is no reference to any specific disputes between any group of workers and managements; nor is there any specification of the firms in which disputes between the management and workers existed. The s...

Varrey Tulasamma Vs. Nandula Buchiramaiah

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ314

Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff and the defendant are adjacent owners of house property. The plaintiff is the owner of a one-third portion of a site on the west shown in the plaint plan and the defendant is the owner of the site and the house on the east which occupies two-third portion of the site marked in the plaint plan. The plaintiff purchased the site in 1938 and the defendant purchased it in 1936. In the year 1928 when the plot was under a common owner, a house was constructed in plot B of the plaint plan with the eaves projecting into site A to an extent of 2 feet 6 inches along the length of the wall for about 10 yards 2 feet; and from the eaves rain water was dropping into the site A. This state of affairs continued until disputes arose and the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove at her expense the eaves on the western side of the house in plot B b...