Privy Council Cases

T.R. Govindaraja Mudaliar Vs. Saravana Mudaliar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ331

Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. He sued for a declaration that he is the owner of the superstructure bearing door No. 68, Saravanaperumai Mudaly Street, Purasawalkam, as well as of the ground on which the super building stands and prayed for possession of both the properties. 2. Objection having been taken to the valuation adopted by the plaintiffs, a commissioner was appointed and on receipt of his report, the plaintiff was directed to pay deficit court-fee amounting to Rs. 202-7-0. Time till the 7th January, 1947, was given to comply with the order. The deficit court-fee was not paid by that date; instead the plaintiff applied for leave to amend the plaint by substituting a prayer for a declaration that he is entitled not to the absolute right in the land but only to a leasehold interest in it. The learned Judge in the Court below dismissed the application on the ground that an amendment of the plaint could not be granted after an order had been made for paym...

Punukollu Parandhamayya Vs. Punukollu Navarathna Sikhamani

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ467

Subba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam, giving a decree in the terms of the award. The appellant is the husband of the respondent. They were married in the year 1930, and in 1944 disputes arose between them, and the wife was living apart from the husband from May 1944. She filed O.S. No. 64 of 1944 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam for recovery of Rs. 30,182-15-7 and also for return of movables. The relief was based upon a claim which is stated in paragraph 10.of the plaint as follows:Cash, immovable and movable properties mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 were intended as stridhanam for the benefit of the plaintiff and her children by the first defendant and were declared as presents in the name of the plaintiff even. If the first defendant's story is that any of the presents were declared in name for the first defendant at the time of the marriage, since they were intended by the givers only for the benefit of the p...

Phani Bhusan Ghosh and anr. Vs. Sibakali Basu

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1952Cal218

ORDERSen, J.1. This rule has been obtained by Phani Bhusan Ghosh and Sital Sarkar. Phani Bhusan has been convicted of having: committed an offence punishable under section 355 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, of having assaulted a person with intent to dishonour him. Sital Sarkar, petitioner No. 2, was convicted under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, of having caused simple hurt; both the petitioners have been sentenced to pay certain fines in default to undergo imprisonment for certain terms.2. The case for the prosecution briefly is as follows: one Sibakali Bose lives in the village of Harope. He is the complainant. His son-in-law Nanda Dulal Das lives in the village of Khalore. On the 26th December 1947, Siba Kali went to his son-in-law and stayed there. On the 28th of the same month at about 7-30 a.m. the petitioners Phani Bhusan and Sital Sarkar and one Chandi Sarkar had an altercation with Nanda Dulal over the repairing of an old fencing which was on...

Shibia Vs. Jhaklu

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1949HP31

Bennerji, J.C.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated 18th Phagun, 2002, of the High Court, Nahan, reversing a judgment and decree of the District Judge, dated 14th Bhadon,. 2002, and thereby decreeing the suit. The plaintiff brought a suit for pre-emption, alleging that he bad a better right than the defendant to acquire, by way of purchase, the suit property from the vendor. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that he had purchased the property from the vendor and his mother. The property in suit had been given to the vendors by way of gift. The defendant further alleged that he was also a reversioner and as such his rights could not be challenged by the plaintiff. The learned District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the donor was still alive and, therefore, the donee could sell the property to the defendant or to any one else, the donee pleased.2. On appeal, the learned Chief Justice found that the plaintiff and the defendants were no doubt Bandhu...

Millar Vs. Galashiels Gas Co.

Court : House of Lords

LORD NORMAND.-I have had the advantage of reading in print the speeches which my noble and learned friends are about to deliver, and I find myself in complete agreement with them. The facts will be dealt with by my noble and learned friend Lord Reid. I desire only to emphasise that no new principle and no extension of any principle already recognised is involved in the conclusion that the appellants are liable to the respondent for breach of the duty imposed on them by section 22 (1) of the Factories Act, 1937. The only question of law in the case is the proper construction of the obligation imposed by section 22 (1) as controlled by the definition of "maintained" in section 152 (1), and on that I wish to add nothing. LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON.-Section 22 (1) of the Factories Act, 1937, is in the following terms:- "Every hoist or lift shall be of good mechanical construction, sound material and adequate strength, and be properly maintained." The statutory duty which, it...

Promode Kumar Roy and Others Vs. Nikhil Bhusan Mukhopadhya and Others

Court : Privy Council

Lord Morton of Henryton: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated 15th June and 28th August 1945, which affirmed, subject to two modifications, the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Rangpur, of 21st July 1943. The appeal raises certain questions as to the true construction of the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940 (Bengal Act, X [10] of 1940) (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). [2] It is necessary to state the history of the case in some detail, in order to show how these questions arise, and it will be convenient to refer to respondents 1 to 7 and their predecessors-in-interest as "the mortgagors" and to respondent 8 as "the Bank." [3] On 10th February 1927, the mortgagors borrowed Rs. 1,20,000 from the Bank and executed a mortgage of the Tushbandar Estate to secure that sum, with compound interest thereon at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum, with half-yearly rests. The loan was repayable on 31st Decembe...

Sri T.D. Ramayya Pantulu, Industrial Tribunal for Engineering Firms an ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ231

Horwill, J.1. On the 5th March, 1948, by G. O. Mis. 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 the 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.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 exis...

D.P. Merchant Vs. the Bank of Mysore Limited

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ417

Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the tenant against an order of the City Civil Judge passed by him in execution of the order of the Rent Controller, dated 15th May, 1948, under Section 7 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1946. The order of the Rent Controller was passed under Section 7 on the ground that the tenant failed to pay the rent due to the landlord. To enforce the order, an execution petition was filed in the City Civil Court under Section 9 of the Act and under that section the order is executable as if it were a decree passed by that Court. The tenant objected to the execution of the order on the ground that it was passed by the Rent Controller without jurisdiction, as the tenancy was not determined by a notice to quit under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. It is in evidence that the landlord who purchased the property on 26th September, 1946, gave a notice determining the tenancy on 30th September, 1946, and requiring the ten...

M.S. Ramayya Vs. the District Board

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ422

Satyanarayana, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He was the Headmaster of the Board Higher Elementary School, Kamakarai, run and managed by the respondent, the District Board of Coimbatore. On certain charges framed against him and proved, the District Board by its order dated 19th November, 1941, reduced the salary of the plaintiff permanently from Rs. 30 to Rs. 25. Against this order of the District Board he preferred an appeal to the Director of Public Instruction and along with his appeal petition he enclosed a Photostat copy of a letter addressed by one Mayana Gowda to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, one Mr. Sundara Rao and dated 21st April, 1941, to establish that there was a conspiracy between one of his subordinates, Mari Gowda, whose relation was Mayana Gowda, and the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Mr. Sundara Rao. The Director of Public Instruction modified the order of the District Board debarring the plaintiff from being Headmaster at any time but reducing his pay to Rs. ...

V. Venugopal Naidu Vs. the Third Judge of Small Causes Court and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ471

ORDER1. On 18th March, 1948, the Additional Rent Controller, Madras, passed an order for eviction against the first respondent in Case No. 2 of 1948. on his file in favour of respondents 5 to 10 in this application, the trustees of the Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Devasthanam Charities. There was no order of eviction as such against the petitioner herein who was the second respondent before the Controller, but there were certain observations in the order of the Controller that he was merely a clerk under the first respondent. On 5th April, 1948, the petitioner filed an appeal, H.R.A. No. 620 of 1948, to the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. The appeal was transferred by the Chief Judge to the Third Judge of the Court of Small Causes. The petitioner thereupon took an. objection that the third Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. This objection as to jurisdiction was heard as a preliminary point by the Third Judge who-held by his order dated 16th August, 1948, that the tran...