Privy Council Cases

Badri Prosad Agarwalla Vs. the King

Court : Guwahati

1. This rule was issued upon the Deputy Commissioner, Nowgong, to show cause why the convictions and sentences imposed on the petitioner should not be set aside. The ease for the Crown was that the petitioner was travelling on the train from Pandu through Gauhati on 14th October 1947. His conduct aroused suspicion and he and his luggage were searched. In the trunks belonging to him was found 37 seers of opium. Evidence was adduced by the prosecution in support of these allegations and the learned Magistrate, believing the evidence, found the petitioner guilty Under Section 9 (a) of Act I [1] of 1878 and sentenced him under that section to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, and to pay a fine of Ea, 1,000 in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. The learned Magistrate also found the petitioner guilty Under Section 9 (c) of the said Act on the same facts, and sentenced him under that section to undergo rigorous - imprisonment for two years a...

Ben Madhu and anr. Vs. Bai Mahakore and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1950Bom66

Gajendragadkar J.1. The short question which arises in these appeals is one of succession under Hindu law. The contest is between the sisters on the one hand and the daughter's daughter on the other. This point arises in this way :2. The property in suit originally belonged to Prabhashankar on whose death it devolved upon his widow Kashi. While Kashi was in possession of this property as a limited owner she sold the same to the defendants under two sale deeds dated 23th January 1941, and 31st January 1941, for Rs. 400 and Rs. 1000 respectively. Subsequently Kashi died on 9th July 1941, leaving her surviving her daughter's daughter Madhu, and the present plaintiffs who are the sisters of her deceased husband. The present appeals arise from suits filed by the sisters claiming to recover possession of the properties left by their deceased brother on the allegation that the sales effected by Kashi in favour of the defendants were not for legal necessity and as such not binding on them. The...

Rai Harendra Lal Roy Bahadur Estates Ltd. Vs. Hem Chandra Naskar

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR960

John Beaumont, J.1. This is a consolidated appeal to His Majesty in Council, namely, Nos. 16,17 and 18 of 1945, from a judgment and decrees, all dated June 7, 1945, of the High Court at Calcutta, which reversed the judgment and decrees, all dated November 7, 1941, of the Special Land Acquisition Judge, 24 Parganas, delivered and passed in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1-894), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.'2. The property acquired consisted of 3 plots of beel (marsh lands) of which the appellant was the owner to the extent of four-fifth shares, and of which the respondents were the tenants under mokorari mourasi leases (permanent, heritable arid transferable tenures at a fixed rent) granted to their predecessor in title by predecessors in title of the appellant.3. The question for determination relates to the apportionment of compensation awarded under the Act as between the appellant as proprietor and the respondents as tenants, and the answer to this ques...

Qanayat HusaIn and ors. Vs. Mt. Sajidunnisa Bibi and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1949All499

Malik, C.J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for realization of Rs. 18,430-11-0 on the basis of a mortgage dated 25th July 1924, executed by her husband Syed Hyder Husain in favour of the plaintiff. The mortgage was for Rs. 17,000 and the amount was to carry interest at the rate of 8 annas per cent. per mensem, compoundable annually. The mortgagor had made payments from time to time which were all entered on the back of the mortgage deed and signed by the mortgagor. After the execution of the mortgage, the mortgagor had executed a deed of waqf dated 27th August 1925, and appointed his nephews, defendants 1 to 3, as mutwallis. Defendant 4 is the subsequent transferee. The mortgagor Syed Hyder Husain had died and the suit was filed against the mutwallis, defendants 1 to 3, and the transferee defendant i.2. In defence, amongst others, two pleas were taken by the contesting defendant. Firstly, that the plaint had not been signed or verified by the plaintiff nor had it been presented by a duly ...

Swarna Rajamma Vs. Thota Venkiah

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)2MLJ13

Mack, J.1. The petitioner obtained an order for stay in the High Court on 3rd September, 1948, which was made absolute on her furnishing security in. Rs. 3,000 to the satisfaction of the Sub-Court, Bapatla, within six weeks from, that date and also depositing some costs and mesne profits within the same period-The petitioner tendered a draft security bond on 17th. September, 1948. Her application was returned with some objections. She re-presented it on 4th October,. 1948. It was then posted on 7th October, 1948, to 18th October, 1948 for objections. On that date the Subordinate Judge held that the time allowed by the High Court order had expired on 15th October, 1948 and dismissed, the petitioner's application; and also disallowed time for filing objections to the draft security bond. This point has already been considered and decided by Yahya Ali, J., in Ganapathi Naicker v. Govindarajulu Naidu : AIR1947Mad70 . He held following the view taken by Happell J. in Rangaswami Nadar v. Pic...

Annamreddi Pichireddi Vs. Sri Vighneswara Swami Varu of Nagamambapuram ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ536

Mack, J.1. The Collector acting under Section 44-B(2)(d) of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act is not a Civil or Revenue Court whose orders are liable to revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The petition is dismissed as not maintainable with costs....

Swarna Rajamma Vs. Thota Venkaiah

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1952Mad601

Mack, J.1. The petitioner obtained an order for stay in the High Court on 3rd September 1948 which was made absolute on her furnishing security in Rs. 3,000 to the satisfaction of the Sub-Court, Bapatla, within six weeks from that date and also depositing some costs and mesne profits within the same period. The petitioner tendered a draft security bond on nth September 1948. Her application was returned with some objections. She represented it on 4th October 1948. It was them posted on 7th October 1948 to 18th October 1948 for objections. On that date the Subordinate Judge held that the time allowed by the High Court order had expired on 15th October 1948 and dismissed the petitioner's application and also disallowed time for filing objections to the draft security bond. This point has already been considered and decided by Yahya All J. in 'Ganpathi Naicksr v. Govindarajulu Naidxj', : AIR1947Mad70 . He held following the view taken by Happell J. in 'Rangasami Nadar v. Pichaimani Nadar'...

Mrs. Barbara Goorgina Debnam Vs. Mr. Fredrick Cecil Burnie Debnam

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ550

P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application by the respondent in O.S.A. No. 85 of 1948 for a direction from this Court to the appellant to pay her a sum of Rs. 350 as counsel's fee and the amount required for buying printed papers to enable her to conduct the appeal, or in the alternative, to direct the appellant to furnish security for costs of the appeal. There was also a prayer that the appellant may be directed to pay her the taxed costs of the suit, but since the application was taken out, the appellant has paid this amount. The respondent was the wife of the appellant.2. It is clear from the authorities which have been reviewed in a recent judgment of Yahya Ali, J., in Mrs. Yvonme Gwendoline Marie Lewis v. Aloysiu Lewis Application No. 3141 of 1948. Since reported in : (1949)1MLJ547 that in a matrimonial suit the wife will be entitled to an order against her husband for payment of the costs of the suit in advance to enable her to conduct the suit. But no authority has been bro...

In Re: Om Prakasha Gupta

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1950CriLJ143; (1949)1MLJ554

Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code to issue an order in the nature of Habeas Corpus to produce the body of the petitioner who is now in the custody of the Commissioner of Police, Madras, and to set him at liberty.2. The petitioner was arrested by the Inspector of Police, Intelligence section, Madras City Police, on 22nd February, 1949 and was produced by him before the Commissioner of Police on 23rd February, 1949 and was remanded to custody for a period of ten days. The arrest as appears from the affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police was made under Section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That section reads as follows:A police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented. This section, it must be noted, occurs in the chapt...

The Commissioners of Income-tax Vs. Henry Ignatius Meldaho

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1949PC206

LORD MACDERMOTT: This is an appeal by way of Case Stated from a judgment dated 16th July 1946, of the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Honduras whereby he allowed the respondent's appeal against an assessment to Income-tax for the assessment year 1945, i.e. the year 1st January to 31st December 1946. [2] The appellants in their application for a Case Stated sought to raise the question of the respondent's liability in respect of three items arising on the disputed assessment, on each of which the learned Chief Justice bad found in the respondents' favour. These were-(1) the sum of $3,391.02 claimed by the respondent for depreciation, (2) the sum of $2,500 which the appellants claimed was not deductible as an expense, and (3) the sum of $21,925,74 which the appellants submitted was taxable as foreign income received in the Colony through Martin's Bank, London. In their printed case the appellants contended that the ruling on all three items was open for review in this ...