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
K.V. Govindan Nair and anr. Vs. Appukutty
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ475
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The only question in this Civil Revision Petition is whether there should be a stay of a suit pending in the Court of the Additional District Munsiff of Calicut for ejectment against the petitioners under Section 4 of the Madras Tenants ind Ryots Protection Act (XVII of 1946). The document under which the petitioners claimed cheir rights is described as an othi deed bearing date of the Malayalam year corresponding to 14th January, 1920. The District Munsiff held that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of that section and dismissed their application for stay of the suit. When the Civil Revision Petition came on before Panchapagesa Sastry, J., he directed the petition to be posted for hearing and determination by a Bench, because of a conflict between the decision in Ranga Aiyar v. Subbayya Gounder : (1942)2MLJ739 and the decision in Raman Nambiar v. Govindan Nayar : (1948)2MLJ381 .2. Under Section 4(1) of the Madras Act XVII of 194...
Tag this Judgment!Nossibolla Vs. D. Stephens
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal339
ORDERSen, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by one Nossibolla against an order acquitting the opposite party D. Stephens.2. The case of the petitioner briefly is as follows : He is a seaman. He wished to get engaged on board a ship & for this purpose he had to approach a body known as the Calcutta Maritime Board to give him what is known as a Muster Card. He applied to the opposite party D. Stephens for this purpose & Stephens gave him a Muster Card but demanded payment of one rupee for this. The contention of the petitioner is that Stephens has contravened the provisions of Sections 25 & 26, Merchant Shipping Act. This case was tried together with another case of a similar nature namely the case of 'Nasurulla v. Stephens'. The evidence was recorded by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate. He was transferred & his successor has passed the present judgment acquitting Stephens.3. The decision of this case will depend mainly upon the construction of Sections 24, 25 & 26, Merchant Shippi...
Tag this Judgment!J.M. Cohen Vs. the King
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1950CriLJ129
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal by one J. N. Cohen, who was convicted by an Additional Preaidenoy Magistrate of an offence Under Section 120B, Penal Code, read with Section 7 (1) of Ordinance III [3] of 1046. He was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of KB. 1000; in default of payment of the fine he was ordered to undergo a further period of six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. Cohen was a Direotor of a Bank known as the Lall Bank and it is said that he was in charge 'of the finance side of the Bank. The Managing Director of the Bank wag a Mr. K. Lall, who was also the proprietor of a firm known as K. Lall and Co., managing agents of the Calcutta Marine Engineering Company. Cohen and Lall ware charged along with Chitta-ranjan Bose, an Accountant of the1 Calcutta Marine and Engineering Companyi and S. K. Datta, Secretary of K. Lall and Co., and were tried together. Chittaranjan Bose and S. K. Datta were acquitted, but Lall was convicted upon the charge of...
Tag this Judgment!Jagatchandra N. Vora Vs. the Province of Bombay
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR997
Tendolkar, J.1. The question that arises for determination in these rules and also in other rules in respect of orders of requisition issued under Section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, is whether a writ of certiorari lies in respect of such an order. It has been argued in all the rules, although this judgment is headed only in some of the rules typical of the two classes of cases which arise under Section 6, viz. (1) where an intimation of vacancy has been given and (2) where no such in timation is given.2. In P.V. Rao v. Girdharlal Lallubhai (1949) 51 Bom. L.R. 438 Division Bench of this Court, to which I was a party, came to the conclusion that an order of requisition under Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance, 1947, was a quasi-judicial act, and, therefore, subject to the writ of certiorari. In order to appreciate what actually was decided in that appeal it is necessary to look at the scheme of Section 4 of the Ordinance and the facts o...
Tag this Judgment!Jagatchandra N. Vora and anr. Vs. the Province of Bombay and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom144
ORDERTendolkar, J.1. The question that arises for determination in these rules and also in other rules in respect of orders of requisition issued under Section 6, Bombay Land Requisition. Act, 1948, is whether a writ of certiorari lies in respect of such an order. It has been argued in all the rules, although this judgment is headed only in some of the rules typical of the two classes of cages which arise under Section 6, viz. (1) where an intimation of vacancy has been given and (2) where no such intimation is given.2. In P.V. Rao v. Girdharlal Lallubhai 51 Bom. L. R. 418 : a Division Bench of this Court, to which I was a A. I. R. 1949 Bom. 303party, came to the conclusion that an order of requisition under Sub-section (4) of Section 4, Bombay Laud Requisition Ordinance, 1947, wag a quasi-judicial Act, and, therefore, subject to the writ of certiorari. In order to appreciate what actually was decided in that appeal it is necessary to look at the scheme of Section 4 of the Ordinance an...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Oshashashi Dei Vs. Petei Dei and and After Death, Khandei Dei and ...
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1949Ori29
Ray, C.J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for declaration of-title and recovery of possession of Section 70 acres of land said to have been inherited by the plaintiff from her deceased husband (Dhruba) but now possessed, by the defendant by virtue of delivery of possession given by the rent execution Court at Jaipur on the strength of an auction purchase which took place some time in the year 1987. The delivery of possession is dated 28th November 1987 and the present suit commenced on 16th July 1943.2. In order to appreciate the questions raised, it is necessary to state certain facts. The disputed lands 'constituted one occupancy holding which was the ancestral property of the plaintiff's husband (Dhruba) and his brother (Brundaban). Both the brothers were in joint occupation of the same till they separated and divided the family property some time about 50 years before the suit. It is alleged by the plaintiff that in that family partition the disputed lands fell comp...
Tag this Judgment!Kashmira Singh and ors. Vs. the Crown
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1950CriLJ177
Harnam Singh J.1. Resham Singh, Angrez Singh, Eashmira Singh, Eundan Singh and Shingara Singh have been convicted Under Section 3E5, Penal Code, in the Court of Mr. V. P. Malhotra, sec tion 30 Magistrate, Bupar, Besham Singh has been sentenced to aeren years' rigorous imprisonment, while Eashmira Singh, Eundan Singn, Shingara Singh and Angrez Singh have been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs. 600 each and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for one year each, Kashmira Singh, Kesham Singh and Shingara Singh have come to this Court in appeal through Mr. Daulat Bam Prem, while Kundan Singh and Angrez Singh have appealed through jail authorities.2. This order will dispose of Criminal Ap. peals Noa. 399, 425 and 426 of 1948.3. Briefly the prosecution caae is that dacoity took place in the house of Inder Singh P.W. 1 in Mandi Jamal on the night between 9th and 10th February 1948. Inder Singh P.W. was sitting with his family in hi...
Tag this Judgment!Kalla Surayya and Sons Represented by Kalla Venkataraju Vs. the Provin ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ379
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This civil revision petition was referred to a Bench by Mack, j., as he felt that there was a necessity for an authoritative decision as to the correct Court-fee payable on plaints like the one before him.2. The petitioner filed the suit in the lower Court (in the Court of the District Munsiff, Rajahmundry) (a) for a declarationthat the order of assessment of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer dated 24th March, 1946', was illegal so far as it related to the plaintiff's commission business for the year 1944-45 (b) and for an injunction restraining the defendants from collecting sales-tax on the plaintiff's commission business for 1944-45 (c) and for a further injunction restraining the defendants from lowing sales-tax for the subsequent years on the plaintiff's commission business.In respect of relief (a) he paid a Court-fee of Rs. 15 under Article 17-A(i) and in respect of reliefs (b) and (c) he paid a Court-fee under Section 7(iv) valuing the subject-matter at R...
Tag this Judgment!Thathi Naicker Vs. the Co-operative Society, Through Its President, Na ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ393
Rajagopaban, J.1. The plaintiff is the assignee-decree-holder in S.C. No. 80 of 1933, the decree in which was passed on 16th March, 1933. In execution of that decree the properties involved in this appeal were attached on 21st June, 1937 and were brought to sale on 4th January, 1944. The plaintiff decree-holder purchased the property himself and took delivery of the property on 3rd March, 1944. The properties originally belonged to the second defendant, judgment-debtor.2. The first defendant, Co-operative Society, obtained an award to recover a debt due from the second defendant and his wife. The award was dated 16th June, 1938. That had the force of a decree and in execution of that decree (award) the properties were brought to sale on 12th May, 1941; the first defendant society itself purchased the property. A sale certificate, however, appears to have been applied for only subsequent to the sale in execution of the decree in S.C. No. 80 of 1933. It was issued to the first defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Ramaswami Ayyar and ors. Vs. the Srirangam Municipal Council, by ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ508
Rajagopalan, J.1. The plaintiff owned lands within the limits of Srirangam Municipality, which lands, it is now common ground, were lands exclusively used for purposes of agriculture and which lands were liable to pay the property tax levied by the Municipality. The levy of such a tax is regulated by Section 81 of the District Municipalities Act, 1920. Section 81(2) provides:Save as otherwise provided in this Act, these taxes shall be levied at such percentages of the annual value of lands or buildings or both as may be fixed by the municipal Council, subject to the provisions of Section 78. Section 81(3) runs:The Municipal Council may, in the case of lands which are not used for agricultural purposes ...levy these taxes at such per centages of the capital value of such lands.... Section 81(4)(a) runs:The Municipal Council may, in the case of lands used exclusively for agricultural purposes levy these taxes at such proportions as it may fix of the annual value of such lands as calculat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6666
- 6667
- 6668
- 6669
- 6670
- 6672
- 6673
- 6674
- 6675
- 6676
- Next ›
- Last »