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
Har Sahai and ors. Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1949CriLJ878
Kaul, J.1. Har Sahai, his brother Ramesh and their father Babu Lai, Kayesfcha, oi village Janigaon, in district Hardoi, were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Hardoi for the murder of Lallu Singh and also for having caused grievous hurt to his brother Raghunath Singh. He acquitted them of the charge of murder, but convicted them under Section 325 read with Section 84, Penal Code for having accused grievous hurt to Lallu Singh as also Eaghunath Singh. He sentenced liar Sahai and Ramesh to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and Babu Lai to two years' rigorous imprisonment, under each count, The sentences of all the accused were Ordered to run concurrently. They have come up in appeal.2. The prosecution case as sought to be established at the trial was as follows: Babu Lai is a village patwari. So are his two sons, Har Sahai and Rameah. They all live in Janigaon. At a distance of 30 Cr 35 paces from their house stands the house of Lallu Singh and Baghunath Singh. Lallu Singh h...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajam Ayyar Vs. Pavanambal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ419
Mack, J.1. The simple point which arises in this petition is whether a revision. lies to the Court against an order passed by a Subordinate Judge appointed under Section 12(1) of Madras Act XV of 1946 as the appellate authority for purposes of the Act. In the present case the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore reversed, in an appeal to him, an order passed by the House Rent Controller and directed the eviction of the petitioner. The point has already been clearly decided by two single Judges of this Court who were in agreement. Yahya Ali, J., in Abdul Wahid Sahib v. Abdul Khader Sahib : AIR1947Mad400 , held that District and Subordinate Judges appointed under Section 12 by notification were not Courts and that such a District or Subordinate Judge was a persona designata, not being a Court subordinate to the High Court. Taking this view, Yahya Ali, J., dismissed an application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of an appeal before the District Judge of Bellary to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagireddi Pothuraju Vs. Missula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ420
Mack, J.1. This is a petition to revise an order passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Vizagapatam, directing the sale of a rice mill in open auction on an application filed by the respondent who was the plaintiff in a suit for dissolution of a partnership firm, whose only business was the running of this rice mill. The suit was filed in 1935 and first dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was not a partner. The plaintiff, however, succeeded in an appeal, A.S. No. 43 of 1940 judgment in which was delivered in February, 1941. Since then, the matter is said to have been pending before a Commissioner appointed to take accounts. In 1948, the plaintiff applied for the sale of the mill, which is now under lease to a third party by the first defendant for Rs. 4,000 for a period of one ear. The first defendant claims to have purchased the interests of the other partners and to hold a preponderant interest in the mill amounting to a 4/5th share. The plaintiff's right to a 1/5th share...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Ali and Co. Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ455
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This case comes up on a reference by the Court of Small Causes under Rule 17 of Schedule IV to the Madras City Municipal1 Act in an appeal filed to that Court against the decision of the Taxation Appeals Committee relating to the levy of property tax on premises No. 19, Angappa Naick Street, George Town, Madras, on the appellants. The material half years in question are the second half year 1945-46 and the first half year 1946-47. The demand for these two half years was made at the rate of Rs. 74-15-11 per half year on the basis of the annual valuation of the property at Rs. 864. The tax due for these two half years was paid in accordance with the demand on 28th February, 1946 and 7th August, 1946, respectively. Later on, the property tax assessment registers of the Corporation were amended and the annual valuation of the' pro-property was enhanced from Rs. 864 to Rs. 5,460. Thereafter the Corporation called upon the appellant to pay for the two half years afore...
Tag this Judgment!S.C. Mitter Vs. the King and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1949CriLJ979
ORDERBlank, J.1. The matter for decision in this Rule lies within a narrow compass but it is necessary to mention the facts in some detail, The petitioner was appointed Director of Industries, Bengal in 1937 and was made the Agent of the Government of India in 1911 for procurement and supply of War materials. In October 1944 he was appointed Deputy Director General (Pro. duotion) and Controller of Supplies, Bengal Circle. On 26th October 1945 the petitioner's residence was searched, it is said, at the instance of the Special Police Establishment, Ministry of Home Affairs. On 14th August 1947 the petitioner was placed under suspension. On 22nd November 1947 an officer of the Special Police Establishment filed 7 petitions of complaint in the Court of the First Special Tribunal, Calcutta, against the petitioner and others charging them with having committed offences under S3. 120B, 161,16S, etc., Penal Code.2. Case No. 1 was against the petitioner only, the charge being for conspiracy wit...
Tag this Judgment!The Central Government of India Vs. Chhotalal Chhaganlal Modi
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom359; (1949)51BOMLR615
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Assistant Judge at Ahmedabad confirming the decision of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad, refusing to stay the proceedings in a suit filed by the plaintiff against the Central Government of India. The plaintiff was a subscriber of telephone No. 5019 and had executed a telephone hiring contract in respect of that telephone. It was signed by him in his personal capacity and not on behalf of any partnership firm. It appears that the telephone was used by other parties who had printed its number on their business letters. The Executive Engineer thereupon served the plaintiff a notice under Clause 15 of the conditions of agreement determining the contract on the expiration of seven days thereof. The telephone was accordingly disconnected on October 28, 1946. On November 2, 1946, the plaintiff gave a notice of a suit under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Director General of Posts and T...
Tag this Judgment!Kulamoni Barik and anr. Vs. Lokenath Mohapatra
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1949Ori35
Ray, C.J.1. It is a defendants' appeal in a suit for enforcement of two mortgages executed by the father of the appellants on 13th September 1929 and 28th September 1929 for considerations of Rs. 110 and Rs. 100 respectively. The plaintiff had filed a suit previously for enforcement of the terms of the mortgages being suit No. 883 of 1940 in the Second Munsif's Court, Cuttack. That suit had been set down for hearing on 13th December 1941. There were no steps taken on behalf of the plaintiff on that date nor did either the plaintiff or his pleader respond to the call of the Court. The defendants had applied for 'time on the ground of illness, In these circumstances, the suit was dismissed for default. The order disposing of the suit reads as follows:Defendants 2 and 3 apply fat time on the ground of illness and plaintiff takes no steps. Plaintiff and his pleader do not appear on call. The suit is dismissed for default.Defendant 1 of that suit was the executant of the mortgage bonds and ...
Tag this Judgment!Hasan Badsha, Minor by His Father and Next Friend K. Mahomed Ghouse Sa ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1949Mad772
ORDERViswanatha Sastri, J.1. C.R.P. No. 650 of 1948: This revision petition is preferred against an order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, in I.A. No. 1209 of 1947 in O.S. No. 706 of 1946, declining to allow the plaintiff to amend his plaint by withdrawing certain allegations made in Para. 5. The suit was laid by plaintiff, a minor, acting through a next friend, for partitiou and possession of a half share in a certain house property, the defendant being entitled to the other half share. In pares. 5 and 6 of the plaint, it is distinctly averred that as a division by metes and bounds was not possible, the property might be directed to be sold under the Partition Act and the proceeds divided. In Para. 9 of the plaint the plaintiff prayed for a sale of the house under the Partition Act between the parties. It is recorded by the lower Court that when the suit was taken up for trial on 26th September 1947 both parties conceded that the property was incapable of being di...
Tag this Judgment!Kalidindi Ramakrishna Raju and Another Vs. Kalidindi Narayana Raju and ...
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1949PC165
Lord Porter: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 2nd January 1915, which reversed the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore dated 9th September 1942. [2] The question for determination is whether an exchange deed in respect of certain properties entered into on 11th February 1934, between appellant 1 and respondent 1, who are brothers, is valid and binding upon respondents 2 and 3, who are minors and sons of respondent 1. The suit was brought on 9th February 1937, by respondents 2 and 3 against respondent 1 and appellant 1 to set aside the exchange deed. [3] The trial Court held that the agreement was in the nature of a family arrangement and was binding on the minor respondents but the High Court reversed this finding. [4] The parties to this appeal belong to the village of Pedapulleru and are all members of the same family. Their relationship is shown in the sub-joined pedigree. [5] Bapiraju had a ...
Tag this Judgment!The Prince Line, Limited Vs. the Trustees of the Port of Bombay
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR1004
Bhagwati, J.1. [His Lordship after stating facts as above proceeded.] This being the position, it remains to be determined how far the defendants or one or more of them are liable to the plaintiffs on the two counts, nam ely negligence and breach of duty which are charged against them in the plaint. Before, however, I come to determine the question of their liability to the plaintiffs, I shall first of all deal with the point of limitation which ha s been urged by the defendants. The point of limitation arises in this way. As noted before the suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs on November 19, 1943, under a special power-of-attorney executed by the plaintiffs in favour of Messrs. Turner Morrison & Co., Ltd. The suit as filed was well within six months of the accrual of the cause of the action, viz. the damage by the fire on May 25, 1943, within the meaning of Section 87 of the Bombay Port Trust Act and if the suit had been held to be properly filed on November 19, 1943, there was n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6669
- 6670
- 6671
- 6672
- 6673
- 6675
- 6676
- 6677
- 6678
- 6679
- Next ›
- Last »