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
Rai Harendra Lal Roy Bahadur Estates Ltd. Vs. Hem Chandra Naskar and A ...
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1949PC179
Sir John Beaumont: This is a consolidated appeal embodying three appeals to His Majesty in Council, namely, Nos. 16, 17 and 18 of 1945, from a judgment and decrees, all dated 7th June 1945, of the High Court at Calcutta, which reversed the judgment and decrees, all dated 7th November 1941, of the Special Land Acquisition Judge, 24-Parganas, delivered and passed in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act (Act 1 of 1894), 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 mokarari mourasi leases (permanent, heritable and 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 tenant...
Tag this Judgment!Balaram Rai and ors. Vs. Mt. Ichha Patrani and ors.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori225
Panigrahi, J.1. The plaintiffs, who have lost in both the Courts below, are the sons of one Fakir Charan Rai who held a revenue-free or muafi grant of the village of Nunia Jampalli in Bargarh Sub. Division of Samblpur district. The defendants are purchasers of Fakir's interest at a court sale in execution of a money decree obtained against the plaintiffs' father.2. The plaintiffs alleged that the village of Nunia Jampalli was granted by HaharajaChhatar Sai to the family of one Lambodar Bai, an ancestor of the plaintiffs, on a permanent and hereditary tenure for doing pujaseba, in the temple of Sri Samaleawari at Samblpur. It is alleged that the grant being one burdened with service and being a Denottar grant, is inalienable and that the court sale in execution of a decree obtained against the plaintiffs' father is void. The plaintiffs admit that the village was being enjoyed in three shares, i.e., an 8 annas share belonging to one Joydeb Bai, a 5 annag 4 pies share belonging to Fakir B...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppayee Ammal and ors. Vs. Periasami Goundan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ117
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. Objection was taken to the correctness of the court-fee paid by the plaintiff on his plaint. The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to the suit properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The plaintiff paid a court-fee of Rs. 100 under Article 17-A(1) of Schedule II to the Court-Fees Act for the relief of declaration of title valuing the properties at Rs. 5,200 and an ad valorem court-fee on Rs. 50-10-0 being half, of ten times the lust for the relief of injunction. He therefore treated the relief of injunction as separate and distinct from the relief of declaration. It is said that the suit must have been valued as a suit falling under Section 7(iv)(c) read with the Madras proviso, that is a suit to obtain a declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed,where the relief sought is with reference to immoveable property in which case valuation...
Tag this Judgment!Sekuru Murahari Rao Vs. Kandula Bapayya
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ514
Mack, J.1. The petitioner is a plaintiff who filed a suit on a promissory note under the summary provisions of Order 37, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, A summons was issued requiring the appearance of the defendant within ten days o service. On the 11th day after service the defendant appeared and moved the Court under Order 37, Rule 3, for leave to defend on the ground that the promissory note sued on was a forgery. The learned District Munsiff gave him, leave to appear and defend the suit unconditionally overruling a technical contention that there was no provision under the Limitation Act to condone any delay in the ten days given in the summons No. 4 in App. B prescribed under Order 37, Rule 2.2. The learned District Munsiff found some difficulty in meeting a technical argument that the Limitation Act made no specific provision for condoning such a delay. His reasoning to get over the technical argument advanced before him is open to a little criticism. It is true that there i...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahim Saheb Vs. Abdul Salam Sahib
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ522
Mack, J.1.Petitioner is the first defendant in a Mohamedan family partition suit. In the plaint filed by two members of the family there were specific prayers for past and future mesne profits on the items of property to be decreed to them and in respect of past mesne profits specific court-fee was admittedly paid. At the preliminary decree no provision was made for either past or future mesne profits. Subsequently on the application of the second plaintiff the learned Judge directed an ascertainment of mesne profits both past and future to be determined by the Commissioner working out the final decree.2. It is contended that this order is without jurisdiction and is not in accordance with Ghulusum Bivi v. Ahamadsa Rowther I.L.R. (1918) Mad. 296, a Bench decision of Ayling and Krishnan, JJ. The facts as set out there do not however show that future mesne profits were asked for in the written statement of the tenth defendant who it was that asked, subsequent to the preliminary decree, f...
Tag this Judgment!Khagendra Nath and ors. Vs. Thandaram Samanta and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal454
Roxburgh, J.1. In this case three petnrs. were each convicted under Section 296, I. P. C., & sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40 in default to suffer six weeks R. I. They were also convicted under Section 352, I. P. C., & each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 in default to suffer R. I. for ten days. There was also an order of compensation. They appealed to the Ses. J. of Howrah who rejected their appeal as being incompetent relying on the case of Nawabali Haji v. Jainab Bibi : AIR1932Cal551 hence the present rule. In that case, it was held that in Section 413, Cr P. C., the words 'a sentence of fine' must be held to include cases where the aggregate sentence does not exceed a fine of rupees fifty. In that case there is a reference also to the case of Akabbar Ali v. Emperor : AIR1931Cal642 where a different argument had been accepted to justify an appeal in a case where two sentences of fine had been imposed. That argument has also been placed before us. There the two sentences of fine o...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Wasudeo Narayan Phadnis
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR578
Chainani, J.1. The facts of this case are simple. A complaint was filed against the three applicants under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, on May 7, 1948, in the Court of the City Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon. After a few adjournments, the regular hearing of the case commenced on July 23, 1948, On that date the complainant was examined, and the case was adjourned to August 11, 1948, and subsequently to August 24, 1948. On the latter date the case had been fixed for hearing at 2 p.m. When the case was called out, the complainant was absent. The learned Magistrate, therefore, passed an order discharging the applicants under Section 259, Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant appeared before the Magistrate at 3 p.m. on the same day and requested that the order of discharge should be reviewed and that the complaint should be re-heard. In his application he stated that he was not able to attend the Court at 2 p.m., as he had to give evidence as a witness in a civil Court, The learned ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Wasudeo Narayan Phadnis and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom10
Chainani, J.1. The facts of this case are simple. A complaint was filed against the three applicants under Section 500, Penal Code, on 7th May 1948, in the Court of the City Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon. After a few adjournments, the regular hearing of the case commenced on 23rd July 1948. On that date the complainant was examined, and the case was adjourned to 11th August 1948, and subsequently to 24th August 1948. On the latter date the case had been fixed for hearing at 2 p. m. When the case was called out, the complainant was absent. The learned Magistrate, therefore, passed an order discharging the applicants under Section 259, Criminal P. C. The complainant appeared before the Magistrate at 3 p. m. on the same day and requested that the order of discharge should be reviewed and that the complaint should be re-heard. In his application he stated that he was not able to attend the Court at 2 p. m. as he had to give evidence as a witness in a civil Court. The learned Magistrate ...
Tag this Judgment!Balasubramania and Company Vs. Penukonda Radhakrishnamurthy and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ518
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The decision of this Court in O.S.A. No. 49 of 1947, no doubt reversed the decision of the learned Judge on the Original Side and therefore our decree is not an affirming decree. It is also clear that the appeal does involve a substantial question of law. But the objection raised to the grant of leave to appeal to the Federal Court is that the condition in section no, first paragraph, viz., that the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance must be Rs. 10,000 or upwards is not satisfied. Under the award the sum payable was Rs. 9,682-8-0 with interest thereon at six per cent per annum from the date of the award. Calculating interest till 17th July, 1946, the date of the filing of the Original Petition No. 153 of 1946 to pass a decree in terms of the award, the amount comes only to Rs. 9,896-3-0, which is less than the required amount. To get over this difficulty Mr. Radhakrishnayya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, co...
Tag this Judgment!Hansabai Sayaji Payagude Vs. Ananda Ganuji Payagude
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom384; (1949)51BOMLR585; AIR 1949 Pat 256
Chainani, J.1. The facts of this case briefly are that on September 8, 1946, the complainant Hansabai filed a criminal complaint against the accused under Sections 447 and 504, Indian Penal Code, and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act, before the First Class Magistrate, Haveli. This was dismissed as she was absent on the date of the hearing. Thereafter she brought a fresh complaint in the same Court. After recording the evidence adduced by her, the Magistrate discharged the accused on March 5, 1947. A fortnight later, on March 18, 1947, the complainant filed a third complaint on the same facts against the accused. This was transferred to the Third Class Magistrate, Haveli. The Magistrate decided to inquire into the case again and issued summonses to the accused. After the evidence, which the complainant produced, had been taken, the accused applied to the Magistrate that no charge should be framed, as he had previously been discharged on the same evidence. The Magistrate did not acc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6681
- 6682
- 6683
- 6684
- 6685
- 6687
- 6688
- 6689
- 6690
- 6691
- Next ›
- Last »