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 Mahalakshmi Textile Mills, Ltd., by Its Managing Agents, S.S.N. La ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ132
Raghava Rao, J.1. An interesting question of company law is raised for determination by this appeal. The material facts which are more or less beyond the pale of controversy may be briefly stated. 2. The plaintiff, a shareholder of the defendant, which is a limited company fell into arrears in respect of the third and fourth instalments of Rs. 1,250 each of the total share amount of Rs. 5,000 payable by him on his 50 shares of the face -value of Rs. 100 each, having duly paid the amounts of the first and second instalments of Rs. 1,250 each, payable along with the application for shares and at the time of the allotment, thereof respectively. There was a meeting of the Directors of the company held on 31st October, 1928, as shown by the entries, Exhibits D-4 and D-5, in the minutes book at which, firstly, it was resolved that the first call (i.e., the call in respect of the third instalment) made as proposed in the circular letters, Exhibit D-2 series, should be confirmed and, secondly,...
Tag this Judgment!Ediga Hanumanthappa and anr. Vs. Eeranti Seethayya and Company Consist ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ217
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The question referred to the decision of the Full Bench is, when a decree is passed in favour of a firm, can payment outside Court to one partner/decree-holder bind the other partner/decree-holders Though the question is in general terms, it is necessary to state the facts of the case to understand the implications of the question. On 18th August, 1942, the District Munsif of Anantapur passed a preliminary decree for sale in a suit on a mortgage in favour of the firm of Eeranti Seethayya and company against the' two defendants who are the appellants before us. The firm was represented by its managing partner, Eeranti Seethayya. The final decree was duly made on 17th July, 1943. On the 12th October, 1944, the execution petition (E.P. No. 467 of 1944) was filed by the decree-holder firm by its managing partner, Eeranti Seethayya, to recover a sum of Rs. 3,342-8-0, by sale of the mortgaged properties. While this application was pending, on 22nd March 1945, the judg...
Tag this Judgment!Adiyalath Katheesumma and anr. Vs. Adiyalath Beechu Alias Umma and ors ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ268
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition by 15 out of 20. members of a Moppla Marumakkattayam tarwad. The first defendant in the suit is the karnavan of the tarwad, and defendants 2 to 5 are the remaining members. The sixth defendant was impleaded in the suit on the allegation that the first defendant had created a sham lease in his name over an item of the family property in anticipation of the suit for partition. The plaintiffs claimed a share in the properties described in Schedules B and C attached to the plaint. A preliminary decree for partition was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry directing a division of the properties belonging to the tarwad as found by him into 20 equal shares and of delivery of possession of 15 out of such 20 shares to the plaintiffs. He also granted other reliefs which are not material for the purpose of this appeal and which are not now in dispute.2. The appeal is by defendants 3 and 4 and is confined to t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd., by Its Managing Agents, S.S.N. Lakshma ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad202
Raghava Rao, J.1. An interesting question of company law is raised for determination by this appeal. The material facts which are more or less beyond the pale of controversy -- may be briefly stated.2. The plaintiff, a shareholder of the defendant, which is a limited company, fell into arrears in respect of the third and fourth instalments of Rs. 1250 each of the total share amount of Rs. 5000 payable by him on his 50 shares of the face value of Rs. 100 each, having duly paid the amounts of the first and second instalments of Rs. 1250 each, payable along with the application for shares and at the time of the allotment thereof respectively. There was a meeting of the Directors of the company held on 3lst October 1928 as shown by the entries, Exs. D-4 and D 6, in the minutes book at which, firstly, it was resolved that the first call (i. e., the call in respect of the third instalment) made as proposed in the circular letters, Ex. D-2 series, should be confirmed and, secondly, the Managi...
Tag this Judgment!Sankara Pursa Vs. Govinda Bhatta and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ542
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. This second appeal is preferred against an order of the District judge of South Kanara setting aside an execution sale under Section 47, Civil: Procedure Code, on the application of the judgment-debtors.2. The facts necessary to be stated for the purpose of the appeal are these. On with May, 1931, the property forming the subject-matter of this appeal was mortgaged by its owners to one Suppi Hengsu who died leaving 9 children governed by the Aliyasanthana law. Under a family karar (Ex. D-1), dated 23rd September, 1931, the mortgage debt along with some other property was kept apart for the seven sons of Suppi Hengsu and two of them namely, Aitha Purusha and Sankara Purusha were appointed adaltedars (managers) on behalf of all the seven sons with power to realise the mortgage debt. These two individuals filed a suit on the mortgage, O.S. No. 84 of 1934, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara and obtained a final decree for sale on 7th S...
Tag this Judgment!Kandaswami Koundan Vs. Sanni Krishnama Naidu
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad790
ORDERMack, J.1. Petnr. who was not a party to the decree filed an appln. under Order 21 Rule 89, C. P. C. to set aside a Ct. sale in execution. The Dist. Munsif & the Dist. J. in appeal concurred in finding that the petnr. had no 'locus standi' to file such an appln, as he was neither the judgment-debtor nor a person deriving title from him nor any person holding an interest in the property & dismissed his appln.2. The facts are briefly these. The judgment debtor is stated without contradiction by the other side to be an old man of about 80. The Ct sale to execution of the decree against him was held on 14-10-1947 at which a house belonging to him to Dharapuram was sold for Rs. 1010. On 27-10-1947 the judment-debtor executed a usufructuary mtge. of some other property, the mtge. specifically reciting as part of the consideration a sum of Rs. 1500 which the mtgee. had to deposit in the executing Ct. What is most important is a specific direction in this mtge. deed to the petnr. to pay t...
Tag this Judgment!Chilukuri Tripura Sundaramma Vs. Chilukuri Venkateswarlu Alias Ramacha ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ586
Govinda Menon, J.1. These appeals arise out of the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali wherein the question for consideration is whether the forfeiture clauses contained in the two lease deeds Exs. P-4 and P-5 executed by the respondents in each of these appeals to the appellant should be given effect to or not. Exs. P-4 and P-5 are both registered permanent leases relating to properties leased out to the respective respondents in each of the second appeals and in each of them the condition regarding the payment of rent is that the lessees were to remain in occupation of the property as permanent lessees on payment of a rent of ten bags of paddy per acre payable at the end of January each year. In default of payment of rent, the lessor is entitled to recover the same with a charge over the crop at an extra rate of four annas per bag over the prevailing rates. There was also a further clause that a period of grace from the end of January to the 16th of March every year is allowe...
Tag this Judgment!Varry Mutyalamma Alias Murtyalu and ors. Vs. Dasary Narayanaswamy and ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ589
Mack, J.1. Petitioners are the defendants in a suit filed against them by the plaintiffs. They seek to revise an order by the. District Munsif allowing a belated amendment of the plaint after the issues were framed. They are persons in occupation of huts on an extent of land in Rajahmundry measuring about 800 sq. yards Plaintiffs sued to evict them praying for a declaration of the right of the first and second plaintiffs to the suit site, for evicting defendants thereon and delivery of possession. They valued the plaint under Section 7(v) of the Court-Fees Act at Rs. 800 being the value of 800 square yards. Defendants in their written statement contested the position that they were in the position of licensees and also the financial jurisdiction of the District Munsif to try the suit on the ground that the value of the site and the huts standing thereon was in excess of Rs. 3000 After issues, the plaintiffs sought to amend their plaint in a manner obviously designed to clothe the Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Pingle Venkat Rama Reddy Vs. Sir Padampat Singhania
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR529
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. These two appeals arise from a common judgment given by Mr. Justice Bhagwati, and a few facts must be stated in order to appreciate what the real contentions between the parties were. One P.V. Reddy, who was a director of the Bombay Life Assurance Co., Ltd., held 534 shares on which Rs. 25 per share had been paid up, and there was an uncalled for liability of Rs. 75 on each share. On July 25, 1944, Reddy sold through his constituted attorney Bhaidas Gulabdas 484 out of these shares, retaining for himself 50 shares which, it might be mentioned, were necessary to be held by a director as qualifying shares. Reddy executed 5 blank transfer forms in respect of these 484 shares-4 for 100 shares each and 1 for 84 shares. These blank transfer forms were ultimately filled in in the name of Sir Padampat Singhania, who was shown as the purchaser of these shares. The company some time thereafter decided on increasing its capital. Sanction for such increase was applied for to th...
Tag this Judgment!Pingle Venkat Rama Reddy Vs. Padampat Singhania
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom76
Chagla, C.J.1. These two appeals arise from a common judgment given by Bhagwati J., and a few facts must be stated in order to appreciate what the real contentions between the parties were. One P. V. Reddy, who was a director of the Bombay Life Assurance Co., Ltd., held 534 shares on which Rs. 25 per share had been paid up, and there was an uncalled for liability of Rs. 75 on each share. On 25th July 1944, Reddy sold through his constituted attorney Bhaidas Gulabdas 484 out of these shares, retaining for himself 60 shares which, it might be mentioned, were necessary to be held by a director as qualifying shares. Reddy executed 5 blank transfer forms in respect of these 484 shares--4 for 100 shares each and 1 for 84 shares. These blank transfer forms were ultimately filled in the name of Sir Padampat Singhania, who was shown as the purchaser of these shares. The company some time thereafter decided on increasing its capital. Sanction for such increase was applied for to the Central Gove...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6683
- 6684
- 6685
- 6686
- 6687
- 6689
- 6690
- 6691
- 6692
- 6693
- Next ›
- Last »