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
The Prince Line Ltd. Vs. the Trustees of the Port of Bombay
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom130
Bhagwati, J.1. After stating the facts His Lordship 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, namely, 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 has 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 19th November 1948, 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 25th May 1943, within the meaning of Section 87, Bombay Port Trust Act, and if the suit had been held to be properly filed on 19th November 1943, there was nothing m...
Tag this Judgment!Mulugu Nagamma Vs. Mudigonda Aghorapathi Sastri and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ456
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali in O.S. No. 16 of 1946. The facts were briefly these. The deceased father of the defendants sold eight items of property to the plaintiff's son on 14th August, 1916, for a sum of Rs. 3,000. The vendee got possession of the properties and enjoyed them. On 6th November, 1924. he executed a will in favour of his mother, the plaintiff, and died soon afterwards. Thereafter, the plaintiff enjoyed the properties. She sold item 8 and a portion of item 7 to strangers. At the time of the sale by the father of the defendants to the plaintiff's son, he had only one son, namely, the first defendant; the other defendants are sons subsequently born to him. The first defendant filed O.S. No. 42 of 1935, asking for a partition of his one-seventh share of all the family properties, including these eight items, impleading his father and the other defendants and also the plaintiff in O.S. No. 16 o...
Tag this Judgment!Champaklal Chhabilrai Bhatt Vs. the Commonwealth Assurance Co., Ltd.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR781
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This revision application has been referred to a division bench by Mr. Justice Weston as it involves a somewhat difficult) question of the interpretation of Section 19 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act of 1947 as to under what conditions a pending suit must be transferred from the ordinary civil Court to a special Court. The suit out of which the present revision application arises was filed on a promissory note executed by defendant No. 2 personally and on behalf of Messrs. Dave & Company, Ahmedabad, who are defendant No. 1 and by defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 2 admitted the execution of the note, but contended that the promissory note was taken from him by undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation. The suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona. After the written statement was filed, defendant No. 2 made an application asking that the suit be transferred to the Debt Adjustment Board at Ahmedabad where this defendant was ...
Tag this Judgment!Champaklal Chhabilrai Bhatt Vs. Commonwealth Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom84
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This revision application has been referred to a division bench by Weston J. as it involves a somewhat difficult question of the interpretation of Section 19, Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Belief Act of 1947 as to under what conditions a pending suit must be transferred from the ordinary civil Court to a special Court. The suit out of which the present revision application arises was filed on a promissory note executed by defendant 2, personally and on behalf of Messrs Dave & Company, Ahmedabad, who are defendant 1 and by defendant 8. Defendant 2, admitted the execution of the note, but contended that the promissory note was taken from him by undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation. The suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona. After the written statement was filed, defendant 2, made an application asking that the suit be transfer, red to the Debt Adjustment Board at Ahmedabad where this defendant was said to reside claiming that he ...
Tag this Judgment!Joshi Ram Krishan Vs. Mst. Rukmini Bai
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All449
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 83, Lunacy Act, IV [4] of 1912, against an order of the learned District Judge of Banaras holding the appellant as of unsound mind and incapable of managing his affairs within the meaning of Section 65 (2) of the said Act.2. One Joshi Bhawani Shanker, father of the appellant Joshi Ram Krishna, died in 1931, leaving the latter as the surviving member of his joint Hindu family and leaving property alleged to be worth about ten lacs including cash deposits in various Banks. He also left a widow Mt. Rukmini Bai.3. On 18th December 1942, Rukmini Bai, the appellant's mother, who is the respondent in this case, applied under Section 63, Lunacy Act, for an inquisition to be made that the appellant, being a man of unsound mind, was incapable of managing his affairs, and praying for the appointment of a guardian of the latter's person and property. This application was not accompanied either by any affidavit or medical certificate. Were it not ...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnakar Ray and ors. Vs. Kulamoni Roy and ors.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori266
Ray C.J.1. This is a petn. by defts. 4 to 11 for revising an order passed by Munaif of Cuttack restoring a suit which had been dismissed under Order 9, Rule 8, C. P. C. The suit was one for specific performance of contract of lease of some waste lands as well as Nijchas lands. The contract had been entered into by defts. 1 to 2, who admittedly are the proprietors. The contract is said to have been entered into on different dates (29-9-44 & 6-2-45) in respect of wastelands & Nijchas lands respectively. The defts. l & 2, however, executed a registered permanent lease in respect of the very same lands in favour of deft. 8 on 4-8-45 The latter about two years after his lease sold his lease-hold interest to defts. 4 to 12 of whom defts 4 to 11 are the petnrs. before us. Admittedly, defts, 4 to 12 were actively contesting the suit. The position in relation to the other defts. is that defts. l to 2 filed & written statement alleging that as the pltf. had failed to pay the promised considerati...
Tag this Judgment!Desayi Chelapathi Reddi Vs. the Provincial Government of Madras, Repre ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ438
Raghava Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff, the appellant here as well as in the lower appellate Court, for a declaration that the Provincial Government had no right to call upon him either to effect any repairs to two tanks called Mussalareddipalle Kunta and Bassampalle Kunta, situate in his shrotriem village of Mussalareddipalle or to pay the costs of the repairs incurred by the Government. The suit was the sequel to action taken by the District Collector of Guddappah under Sub-section (1) of Section 142 of the Madras Estates Land Act and was instituted under Sub-section (3) on both the grounds referred to therein, namely, that the plaintiff was under no obligation to repair the tanks, and that the proportion of the charge which he was liable to pay under Sub-section (1) had been wrongly calculated. In support of the first ground it was alleged in the plaint that there were desabandam inam grants for the repair and maintenance of the tanks c...
Tag this Judgment!A. Krishnaraya Kodgi Vs. A. Sarvothama Kodgi and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ459
Raghava Rao, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal is one of construction of a deed of gift, Ex. P-2, executed on 20th March, 1918, by the first defendant, appellant before me, in favour of the second defendant, the Indian section of the Theosophical Society, Benares, represented by its General Secretary at the time, for the use and benefit of the local lodge at Coondapur. On 6th October, 1942, finding the suit property no longer required for the use and benefit of the local lodge which apparently had by that time ceased to exist and basing itself on the clause of reverter contained in Ex. P-2 the second defendant by its General Secretary at the time executed a deed of sale of the suit property in favour of the first defendant. The plaintiff, the first respondent before me, sued in the Court of the District Munsiff of Coondapur for recovery of possession of the entire subject-matter of the gift deed but succeeded in obtaining a decree for only a half which was later conf...
Tag this Judgment!Desayi Chelapathi Reddi Vs. the Provincial Government of Madras
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad650
Raghava Rao, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff, the appellant here as well as in the lower appellate Court, for a declaration that the Provincial Government had no right to call upon him either to effect any repairs to two tasks called Mussalareddipalle Kunta and Bassampalle Kunta, situate in his shrotriem village of Mussalareddipalle or to pay the costs of the repairs incurred by the Government. The suit was the sequal to action taken by the District Collector of Cuddappah under Sub-section (1) of Section 142, Madras Estates Land Act and was instituted under Sub-section (3) on both the grounds referred to therein, namely, that the plaintiff was under no obligation to repair the tanks, and that the proportion of the charge which he was liable to pay under Sub-section (1) had been wrongly calculated. In support of the first ground, it was alleged in the plaint that there were dasabandham inam grants for the repair and maintenance of the tanks conf...
Tag this Judgment!Kunda Chenchurama Reddi Vs. Chintalapalli Ademma
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ428
Raghava Rao, J.1. The subject-matter of the suit out of which this second appeal arises is an extent of 40 cents of the southern 3 acres, 75 cents, belonging to the plaintiff in S. No. 240 of the Pottempavdu village of the total extent of 4 acres, 75 cents. Alleging trespass on the 40 cents somewhere about 1938 on the part of the defendant, the owner of S. No. 241 lying to the south of S. No. 240, the plaintiff sued to recover possession of the 40 cents and mesne profits thereon. According to the plaintiff, it became possible for the defendant to trespass, because he happened to have become the lessee of the plaintiff's property under Ex. D-2 for a term of seven years and could abuse his possession as such lessee so as to annex a portion of the leasehold to his own property. The plaintiff alleged also that out of 3 acres, 75 cents, an extent of 3 acres, 60 cents, was mentioned in Ex. D-2 as the subject-matter of the demise on account of the fraud which the defendant played. In answer t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6670
- 6671
- 6672
- 6673
- 6674
- 6676
- 6677
- 6678
- 6679
- 6680
- Next ›
- Last »