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
Kirpa Ram Jagan Nath Vs. Thakar Hans Raj
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1950CriLJ344
ORDERHarnam Singh, J.1. Thakar Hans Raj instituted a criminal complaint against Kirpa Eam and Jagan Nath Under Sections 468 and 471, Penal Code, on the allegations that the complainant had sent to the accused firm 895 bags of first claes potatoes weighing 890 maunds which were sold by the accused at a fairly high rate but that they have allowed him a low rate and the accused had received from the complainant Bs. 2,000 as demurrage oharge whereas they had not paid a single pie on that account to the railway department. The complaint further states that the accused had debited the complainant a sum of Re. 3,000 on account of cash payment made to him while in fast no such payment was made to him. The gravamen of the charge is that the accused had fabricated false documents to support false claims.2. The Additional District Magistrate, Simla, examined Hans Kaj complainant, Harbhagwan p.w. 2, goods clerk, Railway Station, Simla, and Bishan Das sou of Ishar Das, school master in village Ohak...
Tag this Judgment!Maniklal Shah Vs. Hiralal Shaw
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal377,54CWN225
J.P. Mitter, J.1. This is a suit in the testamentary jurisdiction of the Court for the grant of probate of the Will of one Narsing Prosad Shaw, deceased. The plaintiff Maniklal is the executor under the Will and is the elder of the two surviving sons of the testator. The defendant Hiralal is the other son.2. The original application for grant of probate was presented on 18th December 1947. Hiralal's name not having been mentioned in the said application as one of the sons of the testator, no citation was issued to him, and in due course, probate of the Will, which is dated 12th October 1946 was issued on 22nd December 1947. On 7th May 1948, Hiralal made an application for the revocation of the probate on the ground of absence of citation on him. This application was heard by Majumdar J. who held that the want of citation was a 'just cause' within the meaning of Section 263, Succession Act, and by his order dated 20th July 1948, he revoked the said grant. The directions given by Majumda...
Tag this Judgment!Sridhar Krishnarao Date Vs. the Crown
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1950CriLJ95
ORDERHemeon J.1. The applicant Shridhar Krishnarao Date was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Section 100 under Section 6 (1), Central Provinces and Berar Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947, by the Second Class Magistrate, Wardba and his appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate, Wardha. He has now come up in revision to this Court.2. On 14th January 1948, 'harijan day' was observed in mauza Nagjbari, Wardha Tahsil, and at other places in accordance with the direction of the Provincial Government and the Local Gram Congress Committee issued a proclamation to the effect that the harijans could visit the temples in the bait under the terms of 8. 9 of the aforesaid Act. On that night a procession of harijans and caste Hindus went to the Bhri Mahadeo temple, but the applicant denied entry to the harijans and relyiug on the gift deed Ex. D 1 claimed that the temple was his private property. The report Ex. P-l was there, after made at the Pulgaon police station and ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Dasappa Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1950CriLJ133
Yiswanatha Saatri, J.1. This is an applies-tion by a person detained under the Madias Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1917 (Madras Act I of 1957) to this Court for the issue of a direction in the nature of Jialeas corpus under. Section 431, Criminal P.C. The applicant was arrested on 25th April I9i8 Under Section 151, Criminal P.C. by the police authorities and an order for his detention wag passed by the District Magistrate of South Kanara on 29th April 1948. On 10th June 1948 the applicant received a communication from the Provincial Government containing the grounds for his detention, He submitted his explanation in due course. The advisory com. mittee considered the matter and we are informed that on 17th February 1943, the Government o Madras have passed final orders for the detention of the applicant.2. Mr. N. S. Mani, the learned Counsel for the applicant, raised four grounds in support of his application. The first contention was that the order for detention itself showed that...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugam Alias Muthukaruppan Vs. N.S. Radhakrishna Sarma and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ741
Raghava Rao, J.1. The facts of the application under Order 21, Rule 16 and Order 34, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, out of which this appeal arises, are as; follows:2. The appellant here was the second respondent to the application in the Court below, while the 1st respondent here was the applicant there. The application prayed that the assignment in favour of the applicant of rights under the final decree in a mortgage suit, O.S. No. 139 of 1926, Sub-Court, Madura, by the decree-holder therein, may be recognised, and that a decree may be passed against the first judgment-debtor, the father of the second personally and against the joint family assets of the two defendants for Rs. 34,538-14-11, being the unrealised balance still outstanding after the sale in execution of the final decree in the suit. The assignment relied on as the basis of the application was one effected by the original decree-holder after the confirmation of the execution sale under the final decree. The deed of assig...
Tag this Judgment!K. Dasappa Vs. the District Magistrate and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ583
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. This is an application by a person detained under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act (I of 1947) to this Court for the issue of a direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant was arrested on the 25th April, 1948, under Section 151, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Police authorities and an order for his detention was passed by the District Magistrate of South Kanara on the 29th April, 1948. On the 10th June, 1948, the applicant received a communication from the Provincial Government containing the grounds for the detention. He submitted his explanation in due course. The Advisory Committee considered the matter and we are informed that on the 17th February, 1949, the Government of Madras have passed final orders for the detention of the applicant.2. Mr. N.S. Mani, the learned Counsel for the applicant, raised four grounds in support of his application. The first contention was that the order for detent...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Gangamoyee Dey Vs. Manindra Chandra Nundy
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal225
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a suit for possession of premises No. 3A, Anukul Mukherjee Road, Calcutta, for arrears of rent for the two months of Jaistha and Aswar 1354 B. S. corresponding to 16th May to 17th July 1947 amounting to Rs. 202 and for mesne profits and other reliefs. The plaintiff's case is that she is the owner of the said premises and that the defendant was a monthly tenant under her at a rent of Rs. 101 per month. The plaintiff gave a notice of ejectment through her Solicitors Messrs. Mitter & Bural on 29th May 1947 calling upon the defendant to quit and vacate on the expiry of the month of Aswar 1354 B. S. corresponding to 17th July 1947. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant sub-let the premises without her consent. This suit was filed on 21st July 1947.2. The defendant filed his written statement admitting the receipt of notice to quit. He also admits sub-letting but states in his written state. ment that it was a condition of the tenancy that he should sub-let por...
Tag this Judgment!Murari M. Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Prokash Ch. Chatterjee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal230
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs for the recovery of a vacant plot of land being the northern portion of premises No. 235/1, Bowbazar Street, Calcutta, more particularly described in the schedule to the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant was a tenant in respect of the said plot of land for a term of 15 years ending on 30th June 1947 at a rent of Rs. 20 per mouth. By a letter dated 25th April 1947, the plaintiffs called upon the defendant to give vacant possession on the expiry of the month of June 1947. It is also alleged in the plaint that a sum of Rs. 60 was due and payable by the defendant on account of rent for three months from April to June 1947.2. The defendant filed his written statement and he took a number of points in defence. Mr. Gouri Mitter who appeared for the defendant has abandoned all these points taken in the written statement and has argued only one point before me and that is a point arising under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Yusuf H. Abbas Vs. Bhagwandas P. Nangpal
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom346; (1949)51BOMLR523
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Desai. and it arises out of a suit filed by a broker against his constituent to recover a sum of money due in respect of various transactions put through by the broker on the Stock Exchange. The only dispute between the parties in the suit was with regard to a transaction of 15 Bombay Dyeing shares. It would appear that on December 10, 1946, the defendant had given instructions to the plaintiff to sell these 15 Bombay Dyeing shares. The plaintiff's case was that on January 2, 1947, the defendant gave him instructions to make a badla of this transaction, and pursuant thereto he purchased 15 shares on January 3 and sold 15 shares on January 7, with the result that there was an outstanding transaction of sale of 15 shares for the settlement which ended on January 16, 1947, and as the defendant did not pay to the broker moneys that were due to him, he closed this transaction on January 16, 1947. As against this the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Nagarmal Surajmal Vs. Gotulal Laxminarayan
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom348; (1949)51BOMLR525
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Coyajee dismissing a summons for judgment taken out by the plaintiffs on the ground that this Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The defendant against whom the summons was taken out contended that he was a resident of Chalisgaon, that he was: a debtor within the meaning of Act XXVIII of 1947, and, therefore, this Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit.2. Mr. Desai on behalf of the plaintiffs has argued before us that in view of the fact that Act XXVIII of 1947 is not applicable to the City of Bombay, and this suit having been filed on the Original Side of the High Court, this Court had jurisdiction to try the suit notwithstanding the fact that the defendant might be a debtor within the meaning of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act. Turning to the scheme of the Act, it is clear that the Act was enacted for the purpose of giving relief to agricultural debtors in the Province of Bombay, and one excepti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6685
- 6686
- 6687
- 6688
- 6689
- 6691
- 6692
- 6693
- 6694
- 6695
- Next ›
- Last »