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
Tarabai Jivanlal Parekh Vs. Lala Padamchand
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom89
Coyajee, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration that the defendant has no right to obtain possession of a certain flat from Government and for an order against the defendant to hand over possession of the flat, being flat No. 13, to the plaintiff. It appears that the defendant is described as the person who was a monthly tenant of flat No. 13 in a building known as Jivan Vihar which was requisitioned by Government on 8th August 1944. The possession of the flat was taken from the defendant, who claims to be the tenant, on 5th May 1945. The Government derequisitioned the flat on 27th May 1947. On the order of derequisition being passed, the Government gave possession of the flat to the party from whom the Government had taken possession at the date of the requisition, namely, the defendant.2. In short, the plaintiff's case is that at the date when the requisition order was served both on the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant's tenancy of the flat came to an end.3...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmipat Singhania Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1951Bom205; (1950)52BOMLR688
1. These two suits are ejectment suits filed by a landlord against his two ten-ants. Since the passing of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act (LVII [57] of 1947), this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain or try any suits between a landlord and a tenant to which the provisions of the Act apply; and they are exclusively triable under that Act in Greater Bombay by the Court of Small Causes. The defendants in both these suits have contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to try these suits; and that issue has been ordered by my learned brother Bhagwati J, to be tried as a preliminary issue.2. Now, the only facts that are relevant for the determination of the question of jurisdiction are that by an agreement of lease dated 12.11. 1918, between the Trustees of the Port of Bombay and one Abraham Jacob Reymond, Reymond agreed to obtain from the trustees and the trustees agreed to grant him a lease of a certain plot of land, for the purpose of putting up a build...
Tag this Judgment!Ahsanul Haq and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1949CriLJ927
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicants, Absanulal Haq and Tufail Ahamad were originally tried in the Court of Sbri E. C. Dube, First Class Magistrate, Nagpur, under Sections 7 and 8, Essential Supplies {Temporary Powers) Aofc, 1946, for contravention of the provisions of the Cotton Cloth Movements Control Order, 1913, on 9th July 1917 and they were convicted and sentenced on 9th December 1947. That order had, however, ceased to be in force long before the date of the alleged contravention and the order which was operative on the relevant date was the Cotton Textile Control of Movement) Order, 1946. This signified that the applicants could have been validly tried for a contravention of that order of 1946 after the requisite sanction thereto, as required by Clause 10, had been obtained. Their trial for contravention of the earlier order was, therefore, illegal and the Second Sessions Judge in appeal quashed their convictions on 24 to February 1948.2. Thereafter, the requisite sanction under th...
Tag this Judgment!Gobinda Kar and anr. Vs. Mohan Maharana and ors.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1949Ori18
Ray, C.J.1. It is plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the disputed 4 acres of lands said to have been purchased by him from defendant 12 on 10th July 1948. Besides, he claims mesne profits of Rs. 216-8-0 for having been unlawfully kept out of possession by defendants 1 to 11. Defendant 12, the plaintiffs' vendor, on his part had acquired the properties by a sale-deed dated 13th May 1938 executed by Gourang (father of defendant 3), Mohan, defendant 1, Baji (father of defendants 4 and 5) and Arjuna (defendant 2), who at the time along with certain other members, who are defendants in the case, constituted a Hindu Mitaksbara joint family. Defendants 1 to 11 contested the suit on the ground that the transaction represented by the sale-deed in favour of defendant 12 was a fictitious one, it having been intended by the parties to execute a banami document. Besides, defendants 3 to 11 raised further plea that in case the plea of benami fa...
Tag this Judgment!Marneedi Satyam Vs. Masimukkula Venkataswami and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ434
Raghava Rao, J.1. The subject-matter of the suit out of which this second appeal arises is a tiled house and site sought to be recovered by the plaintiff (the appellant before me) on the basis of a sale deed in favour of his father executed by one Suranna, the original owner, on 30th August, 1924. The defendants-respondents resisted the action on the ground of a sale deed in their favour by the decree-holder auction purchaser in a suit instituted by a creditor of Suranna, who had obtained an attachment before judgment of the property in question on the very date of Suranna's sale deed in favour of the plaintiff's father. The main issue for trial in the present suit was whether the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was nominally executed in fraud of the. creditors of Suranna, as alleged by the defendants. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court both having held against the plaintiff on this issue, he has preferred this second appeal in which having heard arguments on 18th Janua...
Tag this Judgment!Duryodhan Kar and anr. Vs. Brajasunder Deb, After His Death Raja Chand ...
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1949Ori31
Ray, C.J.1. It is defendants appeal in a suit for ejectment by the respondent-landlord. The disputed lands had been divided into two different schedules 'Ka' and 'Kha. 'Ka' schedule, lands were recorded in the revisional settlement survey as patadoraghena. In the column for rent, Rs. 4-7-11 pies were stated to be the rent, but down below IB as. 11 pies were indicated to be the ghenanjama. The selfsame holding came to be recorded in what is known as current, settlement record of rights as occupancy holding of defendant 1 and widow of his brother, deceased Ghana Ear. The rent payable in respect of this holding was shown at Rs. 4-8-0 substantially the same as the rent shown in the. rentcolumn of the revisional survey. The local case in the current settlement was shown as 2 as. 3 pies. The area of this holding is 3 acres and 66 decimals Schedule 'Kha' land has been recorded in both the settlements as 'madhyasa-twadhikari' (tenure). In the revisional survey, there were the additional words ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Basu Majumdar Vs. Brojendra Nath Paul
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal259,54CWN135
G.N. Das, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendant in a suit for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff's allegation is that he acted as the defendant's pleader in Money Execution Case No. 101 of 1942 and withdrew certain gums of money from Court and paid to the defendant his share of the moneys so withdrawn, oa a receipt given by the defendant. The defendant however lodged a complaint before the Magistrate at Serampore alleging that the plaintiff and two other persons had forged a vakalatnama, and on the strength of the forged vakalatnama had withdrawn moneys from Court and had misappropriated the same. The Magistrate thereupon took cognizance of the matter and sent the matter for enquiry to the munsif at Serampore. The munsif issued a notice on the plaintiff, and after an enquiry made by him, submitted a report. On perusal of the report, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203, Criminal P. C. The plaintiff claimed damages for a sum of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Bitti Kuer Vs. Banarsi Baboo
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All610
Agarwala, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. The plaintiff claimed that she was the owner of the bottle which was being occupied by the defendant as a tenant from month to month, that he was in arrears and so she took the permission of the Town Rationing Officer for his ejectment in view of the provisions of the orders promulgated under the Defence of India Rules, that the arrears had been paid prior to the suit, but the house had not been vacated and that, therefore, the suit for ejectment had to be brought. The defence was that the rent having been paid and accepted by the plaintiff prior to the institution of the suit, there was a waiver and the Town Rationing Officer's permission lapsed and could not be given effect to and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit, The trial Court decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court dismissed it. The plaintiff has come up in second appeal to this Court.2. The only point urged on...
Tag this Judgment!Varindmal Vs. Radha Krishna and ors.
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1949CriLJ634
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. This criminal revision petition arises under the following circumstances:2. Yarindmal, the petitioner before me, filed S, complaint under Sections 312, 506, 323 and 161, Penal Code, against Radha Krishna, Jagdish and Gulzari. Accused l is a Sub-Inspector of Police, while the other two accused are constables. The complaint was to the effect that on 13th June 1948, the acoused arrested the petitioner, handcuffed him, took him to the Kotwali and illegally detained there for two hours. He was eventually released on bail after payment of Es. 60 as bribe to the police officers.3. The complaint was instituted in the Court of the Additional City Magistrate (Mr. Badlani) who referred the case to the District Magistrate in accordance with para. d88, Police Regulations, The case was transferred to the City Magistrate 'for trial' by the District Magistrate. Summonses were issued to the accused by the City Magistrate and they appeared in his Court on 2ith July 1948. Meanwhi...
Tag this Judgment!Naubat Rai Vs. Jugal Kishore and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All606
Malik, C.J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision. The plaintiffs from time to time lent money to the defendant and the defendant made certain payments. In the year 1945, the plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 136-10-0 as balance due on the basis of the plaintiffs' ac-count-books. The defendant pleaded that he was an agriculturist and that as there was no 'written document' evidencing the loans, for the recovery of which the suit had been filed, within the meaning of Section 39, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, the plaintiffs' suit was bound to fail. There were other pleas also taken and the trial Court framed three issues. It held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the debt and were, therefore, not entitled to recover anything. The plaintiffs filed an appeal, and the learned District Judge of Farrukhabad held in defendant's favour that the provisions of Section 39, Agriculturists' Belief Act had not been complied with as there was no 'written document'. But the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6668
- 6669
- 6670
- 6671
- 6672
- 6674
- 6675
- 6676
- 6677
- 6678
- Next ›
- Last »