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
Horam and ors. Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All564; 1949CriLJ868
Agarwala, J.1. This is an appeal by seven persons, Horam, Chhote, Jithua, Mangala, Ram Chander, Jhabra and Moti, who have been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Moradabad under Sections 304/149, 325/149, 323/149 and 147, Penal Code, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, the maximum sentence being seven years.2. The prosecution case was that the accused Ram Chander was a tenant of a certain plot in Village Jagua in the District of Moradabad in the zemindari of Mohammad Mehdi Raza. There were ejectment proceedings against Ram Chander and it was alleged possession was delivered by the court amin to the zemindar's representative on 1lth November 1945. At that time there were no crops in the field. In June 1946, be the prosecution story went on, the zemindar got a crop sown in the field but owing to excessive rain this crop did not come up satisfactorilly About ten days later, namely, on 27tb June I9i6, the zemindar decided to have the field reploughed and reown. He sent Teja alo...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Zahid Ali Sabzposh Vs. Syed Shahid Ali Sabzposh
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All660
P.L. Bhargava, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The suit, which has given rise to this appeal, was instituted by Syed Zahid Ali, the plaintiff-appellant, against his own brother, Syed Shahid Ali, the defendant respondent for the purpose of obtaining a perpetual injunction restraining the latter from looking after the management of their shares in seven villages, which he described as wakf property and the shares in three other villages, which he claimed as his exclusive property, mentioned in Clauses A and B, at the foot of the plaint and from making collections there from, and also for settlement of account and recovery of his share of profits of the said villages. 2. The plaintiff's case was as follows : The property in suit had been made wahf-alal-aulad and he was the mutwalli of the same. The property mentioned in Clause B was exclusively owned by him. The management of the property in suit was in the hands of Syed Wajid Ali, who died in October 1938. Thereafter, at the request o...
Tag this Judgment!Hukumchand Mishrilal Mehta and ors. Vs. Chandmal Bhagwan Mehta
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950MP25; 1950CriLJ764
ORDERMehta, J.1. This criminal reference is made by the District Magistrate, Ratlam, recommending that the conviction of accused Hukumchand, NO. 2 Bapulal and no. 3 Ratanlal, by the First Class Magistrate Ratlam Under Sections 323 & 504 be set aside. The short facts are that the complainant Chandmal filed a complaint Under Sections 323, 352, 504, 500, 506 and 109, Penal Code against 10 persons consisting of the entire family, The trial Court proceeded Under Sections 323 and 504 and all the accused were discharged except Hukumchand, Bapulal and Ratanlal - Hukum. chand was convicted Under Section 323, Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of RSection 10 and Bapulal and Batanlal are convicted Under Section 504 and sentenced to a fine of RSection 10 each.2. I have gone through the order of reference and it appears to me that the referenoe must be aoeepted. The reference is also supported by the Publio Prosecutor. It appears to me that this complaint is not at all well founded. It is alleged t...
Tag this Judgment!Udayanarayan Pati and ors. Vs. Radhashyam Mangaraj Mahapatra and ors.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori36
Ray, C.J.1. Defendants 1 to 5 are the appellants of whom defendant 3 is dead and the other defendants on record are his legal representatives. The plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession under the following circumstances. The plaintiff is a cosharer landlord of the estate within the ambits of which the disputed holding lies. He instituted rent Suit No. 5633 of 1927-28 for recovery of his share of rent but impleaded 12 other cosharer landlords as pro forma defendants in order to constitute the suit in the form conformable to the provisions of Section 199 of the Orissa Tenancy Act. He obtained a decree and there is no dispute that the said decree was a rent decree and would carry the same effect as that obtained either by a sole landlord or the entire body of landlords for the total arrears of rent due in respect of the holding. As the holding, however, had been mortgaged to the appellants in the year 1914 and a suit for enforcement of the mortgage wa...
Tag this Judgment!Giridhari Dhal Vs. Hrushikesh Roy and ors.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori176
Panigrahi, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant for confirmation, or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession with damages,from defendant No. 1 of 2.10 acres of land comprised in C. S. holding No. 165 of village Guhali.2. The plaintiff's case is that He purchased the suit lands at a Civil Court sale on 15-9-1941 and was put in possession through court, and was in possession till 3-1-43 when he was ousted by defendant No. 1 who claims to have purchased the same lands at a Rent Sale in execution of a decree obtained by defendant No. 4 in the Rent Court in suit No. 17752 of 1940-41.3. The admitted facts are that defendants 2 and 3 were originally the recorded tenants and defendant No. 2 ultimately became the sole tenant as he had purchased defendant No. 3's interest prior to the rent suit. Defendant No. 4 is the landlord of the holding and defendant No. 5 is the Court of Wards, who have taken charge of the management of the estate belonging to defendant No....
Tag this Judgment!B. Chandappa Indra Vs. M. Jagathpala and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ540
Mack, J.1. Petitioner is the plaintiff who sued as a member of a charitable Jain Sangham, an institution which sought to provide for the education of Jains, the maintenance of a school and so on. He sought permission under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, to sue in a representative capacity the Secretary of the Sangham and 9 committee members for certain reliefs, inter alia for a direction to call a general body meeting, elect new office-bearers, render account, etc. After the Court had given publicity as required by Order 1, Rule 8, 12 members of this Sangham filed affidavits strenuously opposing the petitioner's right to represent them or the majority of the members of the Sangham. The learned Subordinate Judge, on the strength of Harikisandas Shivlal v. Chhaganlal Narsidas I.L.R. (1915) 40 Bom. 158 held that in view of these affidavits, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to represent or sue on behalf of the members of the Sangham. This Bench decision of the Bombay High Court is n...
Tag this Judgment!C. Tadulinga Mudaliar Vs. M.R. Sakuntala Bai and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ616
Govinda Menon, J.1. Election Petition No. 5 of 1948 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, was filed by Mrs. Sakuntala Bai, the first respondent to this petition against three persons two of whom had been declared as the successful candidates in the election to the Corporation of Madras from the 40th Division (Chepauk) held on 30th September, 1948. The third respondent to her petition is the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras. In her petition for setting aside the election, the first respondent herein alleged several instances of irregularities in the conduct of the election as well as false personations and misrepresentations practised by the candidates. It was alleged that there was false personation of voters on a large scale and quite a large number of false votes were recorded in favour of the successful candidates. It was further alleged that many dead persons were ' resuscitated ' and voters who had left the division long before were impersonated and their votes reco...
Tag this Judgment!Saraju Prashad Singh Vs. Gangaprosad Shah and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal446
Roxburgh, J.1. Civil Revn. case No 1408 of 1948 is against an order of the Subordinate Judge, 24 Parganas, reversing on appeal an order of the Munsif, 2nd Ct., Baraset, granting an ad interim injunction at the instance of the present petnr. against defts. 1, 2, 3 & 5 in the suit before him from interfering, or in any way disturbing the exercise of the functions of the pltf. in the suit as Chairman of the Bhatpara Municipality. The ground on which the Rule has been issued was that the order of the Munsif was not a final order & was not, therefore, appealable.2. The learned Subordinate Judge set aside the ad interim injunction granted by the Munsif, but sent the case back for a decision on the point whether a temporary injunction could be granted at all as prayed for by the pltf.3. The pltf. is the former Chairman of the Municipality & alleges that he was coerced into drawing up a letter of resignation, but before it was accepted he asked that no action be taken on it. The defts. in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ghelabhai Mahasukhram Roy Vs. Keshavdev Madanlal Nemani
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom343; (1949)51BOMLR499
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati dismissing a petition of the appellant to set aside an award. The award came to be made in these circumstances. The appellant engaged the respondent as his broker and the respondent put through many transactions under the rules and bye-laws of the Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association of which he is a member. On October 23, 1947, there was an outstanding transaction of purchases of 125 Tata Deferred shares. According to the broker, on November 5, 1947, the appellant gave him instructions to close this outstanding transaction by a sale of 125 Tata Deferred shares, and pursuant to these instructions the broker closed the outstanding transaction. As a result of this a certain amount became due and payable by the constituent to the broker. The broker made a demand, the constituent failed to make the payment, the matter was referred to arbitration under Rule 117(a) of the Native Share and Stock Brokers' Asso...
Tag this Judgment!Shivji Bhara and Co. Vs. Kanji Vasanji
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom337; (1949)51BOMLR515
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The only question that arises in this appeal is whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable in this Court or it should be transferred to the Court of Small Causes under the provisions of Bombay Act LVII of 1947. It would appear that the plaintiffs were the tenants of the defendants who are trustees of a charitable trust in respect of three godowns for some time prior to the explosion that took place in Bombay on April 14, 1944. In the explosion two of the godowns were destroyed. The plaintiffs vacated the third godown as it was required by the defendants for storing certain articles. Thereafter the plaintiffs wanted to resume possession of the third godown, and according to the plaintiffs the defendants agreed to give possession of the third godown provided the plaintiffs not only paid the rent of Rs. 125 which was the proper rent, but also a pugree aggregating to Rs. 5,200 worked out on the basis of Rs. 400 being paid per month for a period of 13 month...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6682
- 6683
- 6684
- 6685
- 6686
- 6688
- 6689
- 6690
- 6691
- 6692
- Next ›
- Last »