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
Dominion of India Vs. Gobordhandas Shroff
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal384
ORDERDas Gupta, J.1. This application is for a revision of an order of the Full Bench of the Small Cause Court dismissing an application against an order of a Judge of that Court, decreeing in part the claim for damages with regard to a consignment of 125 bales of hemp sent by the opposite party by the East Indian Railway. It was said that a part of the goods had been damaged by fire in transit & the delivery of the remainder was taken by the opposite party. The consignment was booked under cover of Risk Note B. The consignment was loaded in a closed wagon & neither side has offered any explanation as to how the hemp caught fire. In view of the terms of the Risk Note B the opposite party will not be entitled to any damage except on proof that 6f the loss or damage arose from a misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration or its servants. Admittedly no direct evidence about this was given. The learned Small Cause Court Judge however held that as the goods were loaded in closed w...
Tag this Judgment!Amarendra Nath Ghose and ors. Vs. Nilratan Baidya and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal488
ORDERSen, J.1. These three rules have been obtained by the creditors in an appln. under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors' Act for a settlement of four debts. The appln. was made on 15-2-1939 & the order on which these rules have been issued was made on 6-8-1948. These two dates will show that this matter which is supposed to be decided speedily has not yet been decided although more than ten years have elapsed. I am constrained to say with great respect that this piece of legislation which is designed to give a speedy remedy is one of the most confused pieces of legislation I have had to deal with & far from giving a speedy remedy it has had the effect of prolonging proceedings to an unbelievable extent. This is due not only to the defective nature of the Act but also to the fact that the persons who administer this Act are not versed in law & yet are expected to deal with fairly intricate questions of law.2. I shall now state a number of events which have taken place in this litigation...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra Kishore Acharjya and ors. Vs. Keshab Sankar Roy and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal382
ORDERDas Gupta, J.1. This petition is for a revision of an order passed by the Munsif at Alipur dismissing the petitioner's application under Order 21 Rule 58, Civil. P. C. It appears that one Suresh Ch. Sanyal, being the owner of premises No. 27 Hindus-than Park left a will by which on his death his widow Charusila became entitled to life-interest in it & his son Amiya to remainder after Charusila's death. Both Amiya & Charusila after Suresh's death lived in these premises. The other facts which are not in dispute may also be stated. One Sudhir Ranjan Ganguly obtained a decree & in execution thereof the petnrs purchased Amiya's interest in these premises on 10-10-1947, that is, some months before the date of the present attachment. No further steps as regards delivery of possession were taken by them, it is alleged, on the ground that Amiya had no interest which could be taken possession of now. An application under Order 21 Rule 59, Civ. P. C. was filed by the pre-sent petitioners ob...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Prakash and anr. Vs. P.N. Tagore and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All747
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J.1. This is a revision against the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st class, Dehra Dun, in connection with an application for injunction prayed against the defendants with respect to their making construction on the tenancy land in suit. The application was made in a suit under Section 171, U.P. Tenancy Act for the ejectment of the tenants and the alleged sub-tenants.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no revision lies to this Court. I agree with the objection.3. Section 276, U.P. Tenancy Act, empowers this Court to call for the record of any suitor application which has been decided by any subordinate revenue Court, and in which an appeal lies to the District Judge and in which no appeal lies to the High Court as the case may be, and if the District Judge or such subordinate Court appears to have acted in either of the ways mentioned in Clauses (a) to (c) of the section. It is not disputed that no appeal lay to the District Judge from the decree und...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: N.R. Sreenivasan a Detenu in the Central Jail
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1950CriLJ183
Rajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner applies Under Section 491, Criminal P.C. for his release from detention. The petitioner was arrested and taken into judicial custody on 25th October 1947. He was charged in two cases with the commission of specific offences punishable under the Penal Code, namely, SSection 147,148,823, 426 and 452, Penal Code, He continued in such judicial custody apparently till 2lst March 1948. Some time before 21st March 1948 he applied for release on bail with reference to those specifia charges levelled against him under the Penal Code. Bail appears to have been granted by the Sessions Judge, but on what date it was granted we have not been told. Meanwhile, on 5th March 1948, an order was passed by the District Magistrate of Coimbatore Under Section 2 (1)(a) of Madras Act I [l] of 1947. The order ran :Whereas I...am satisfied that with respeot of N. E. Srinivasan...that he is acting in a manner prejudicial to the Public safety and with a view to preventing him from...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: N.R. Sreenivasan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ581
Rajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner applies under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his release from detention. The petitioner was arrested and taken into judicial custody on 25th October, 1947. He was charged in two cases with the commission of specific offences punishable under the Penal Code, namely, Sections 147, 148, 323, 426 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. He continued in such judicial custody apparently till 21st March, 1948. Some time before 21st March, 1948, he applied for release on bail with reference to those specific charges levelled against him under the Penal Code. Bail appears to have been granted by the Sessions Judge, but on what date it was granted we have not been told. Meanwhile, on 5th March, 1948, an order was passed by the District Magistrate of Coimbatore under Section 2(1)(a) of Madras Act I of 1947. The order ran:Whereas I * * * am satisfied that with respect of N.R. Sreenivasan * * * that he is acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safe...
Tag this Judgment!Oivind Lorentzen, as Director of Shipping and Curator of the Royal Nor ...
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1949PC200
LORD WRIGHT: This is an appeal from the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, holding the appellants, the owners of the Norwegian Steamship Norefiord, solely to blame for a collision which occurred on 20th August 1942, between the Norefjord and the United States Steamship Alcoa Rambler (hereafter called the Rambler) the owners of which were respondents in the appeal. The case was tried in the first instance in the Exchequer Court of Canada, Admiralty Division, by the Hon. Carroll J., who held both vessels to blame, apportioning the blame as to three fourths to the Rambler and as to one-fourth on the Norefjord. [2] The collision occurred in the Bedford Basin in the Harbour of Halifax, Nova Scotia. The Basin is a large expanse of water, a few miles in length and breadth, roughly rectangular or rather perhaps oval in shape, its greater length being from North to South. At the southeastern corner, there is an exit called the Narrows, leading into a channel which runs past the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Bombay Garage Ltd. Vs. the Industrial Tribunal
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1953)IILLJ14Bom
Tendolkar, J.1. This is a rule for a writ of certiorari against the industrial tribunal, Bombay, consisting of Mr. P.S. Bakhale in respect of an award made by the tribunal on 20 November, 1948. The petitioners are the Bombay Garage Limited. They commenced business as a limited company on 1 April, 1945 and took over the business of Messrs. F.M. Chinoy and Co. Ltd., who are the proprietors of a concern known as the Bombay Garage. In July, 1946, certain disputes arose between the petitioners and their employees, and by a notification dated 20 March 1948 the provincial Government referred the dispute to the respondent. The demands of the workers were set out in annexure (A) to the said notification and the 3 relevant demands for the purpose of the present petition are as follows:(3) Dearness allowance at the minimum rate of Rupees 1/8 per day should be paid to every workman with effect from 1 January, 1947. * * *(9) Gratuity at the rate of one month's salary for every completed year o serv...
Tag this Judgment!Har Prasad and ors. Vs. Budh Singh
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All752
Seth, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of execution proceedings. The decree under execution was passed by a civil Court. It was transferred to the Collector for execution. The judgment-debtor filed an objection to the execution of the decree by the sale of the land which was sought to be sold alleging that it was protected under Section 17 (1) (a), U.P. Debt Redemption Act. The objection was dismissed by the Bale officer and the order of the sale officer dismissing the objection was confirmed in appeal by the Collector. The judgment-debtor then filed the same objection in the civil Court. The Court held that the decision of the sale officer confirmed by the Collector operated as res judicata and the objection could not be entertained afresh by the civil Court. This order has been set aside by the lower appellate Court and the case has been remanded to the Court of first instance. The lower appellate Court has held that the sale officer had no jurisdiction to decide the objection whic...
Tag this Judgment!Chunduru Kanniah Gupta and anr. Vs. Pallamparthi Subbarami Reddi
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ390
Govinda Menon, J.1. Defendants 1 and 3 are the appellants in this second appeal. The plaintiff's suit was for specific performance of a contract, Exhibit P-2, dated 27th April, 1942, for sale of certain piece of land belonging to the joint family of defendants 1 and 2. This agreement though it was intended to be executed by both the defendants, was, in fact, signed only by the first defendant. The second defendant is alleged to have later entered into another agreement with the plaintiff, Exhibit P-I, dated 25th May, 1942, but the finding of the lower courts is that this is not a document which could be enforced as it has not been proved to be genuine. On the 6th August, 1942, defendants 1 and 2 sold the same property to the third defendant under Exhibit D-5 and the present suit for specific performance of the contract, Exhibit P-2, was filed, making the purchaser under Exhibit D-5 also a party.2. The trial court found that the entire document, Exhibit P-2, is unenforceable because, ac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6674
- 6675
- 6676
- 6677
- 6678
- 6680
- 6681
- 6682
- 6683
- 6684
- Next ›
- Last »