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
Emperor Vs. Fakirmahomed Currimji Lalji Sajan
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom373; (1949)51BOMLR573
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of the Province of Bombay against the order of acquittal passed by the Presidency Magistrate, 19th Court, Eslpanade, Bombay, acquitting the opponent under Section 9(7) of the Bombay Smoke Nuisance Act of 1912 for breach of Rule 26 of the Rules under that Act. It is alleged that in contravention of the provisions of the rule the chimney of the opponent's hotel emitted smoke at the lower altitude than that permitted by the law, on February 10, 13, and 10, 1948, between certain hours as specified in the complaint.2. The opponent, who was the accused before the lower Court, is the proprietor of Pyrke's Apollo Hotel situated in a building known as Bright Land on the Lausdowne Road, Apollo Bunder. On the first floor of that building is the kitchen of the hotel, which is about 12 feet from the ground. In that kitchen there is a cooking range with ovens, and in order to allow the smoke coming up from the ovens to go out there was a chimney...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Ganga Prasad Vs. Gouri Shankar Sanganaria
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori42
Panigrahi, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the respondent plaintiff for recovery of damages for an alleged breach of contract to sell 5 bales of KKK sarees by the appellant. 2. The plaintiff's case is that defendant No. l, the appellant, is the proprietor of Jagjiv Rao Mills, Gwalior, and that he entered into a contract for the sale of five bales of cotton sarees on 4th June 1941 through their local Agents, Messrs. Baharilal Madanlal, who were impleaded as defendants 2 and 3. It ia alleged that the contrast was entered into on the representation of defendants 2 and 3 who showed a sample of the sarees contracted for. This contract was formally confirmed by the appellant, defendant l, on 12th June 1941 and the terms of the contract are embodied in a printed agreement which is Ex. A in the case. The plaintiff's case is that he made several demands on defend ants 2 and 3 to supply the contracted articles bub that they failed to fulfil the terms of the contra...
Tag this Judgment!The Jawahar Mills, Ltd. Vs. Sha Mulchand and Co., Ltd. (In Liquidation ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ88
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Clark, J., arising out of proceedings under Section 38 of the Indian Companies Act to rectify the register. The respondent-company was the applicant and the application was granted by the learned Judge. The substantial prayer in the application was in these terms:Why the share register of Jawahar Mills, Ltd., should not be rectified by restoring the name Sha Mulchand & Co., Ltd., to the said register in respect of 5,000 shares numbering 15,048 to 20,047. Jawahar Mills, Ltd., are the appellants in this appeal. The application was: filed by the Liquidator of Sha Mulchand & Co., Ltd., Salem, which Was ordered to be wound up by an order of this Court in O.P. No. 199 of 1944.2. Jawahar Mills, Ltd., the appellant, is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Sha Mulchand & Co., Ltd., were the managing agents of Jawahar Mills, Ltd., from the starting of the company till 30th June, 1939, on which date they resigned the m...
Tag this Judgment!Kayanna Variyan Madhathil Ramunni Variyar and Manger of Puthravakasam ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ556
1. The point that arises for consideration in revision turns upon the construction of Section 4, Sub-section (5) of the Madras Tenants and Ryots Protection Act (Madras Act XVII of 1946). The section reads as follows Where a suit or other proceeding is stayed under Sub-section (1), the tenant or ryot shall, so long as this Act is in force, deposit or continue to deposit in Court, for payment to the landlord, each year's rent as it accrues due, within a period of two months from the date on which it becomes payable or such further period or periods not exceeding two months in the aggregate as may be allowed by the Court.The lower Court held that it had no power to extend the time beyond four months from the date the rent accrued due. The Sub-section does not in express terms confine the jurisdiction of a Court to extend only up to a continuous period of four months. Mr. Variar for the respondent argues that the words 'further period' in Sub-section (5) can only mean a further period in c...
Tag this Judgment!Capt. A.C. Smyth Vs. Mrs. Hannah Smyth
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal293
K.C. Chunder, J.1. This rule was issued at the instance of Capt. A. C. Smyth against an order of a Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, allowing a monthly maintenance of Rs. 100 to the opposite party Mrs. Hannah Smyth tinder Section 488, Criminal P. C.2. The point at issue is whether the parties are husband and wife. According to Mr. Das appearing on behalf of the petitioner husband, a Roman Catholic like Capt. Smyth could not marry Mrs. Smyth because she was one professing the Jewish Faith at the time of the marriage. According to him, under Section c, Indian Christian Marriage Act (XV [15] of 1872), a marriage in which one of the parties is a Christian has got to be solemnised according to the Indian Christian Marriage Act, and Section 5 lays down by whom or where such marriages may be solemnised. One of the persons before whom such a marriage can be solemnised is a Marriage Registrar appointed under the Act. The parties were no doubt married before such a Marriage Registrar. His conte...
Tag this Judgment!O. Rm. M. Sp. S.V. Meyyappa Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1943)2MLJ8
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This reference has been made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, in accordance with a direction given to' him by this Court under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The reference involves the interpretation of Section 25(3) of the Act.3. The petitioner and his brothers were members of an undivided Hindu family, and when joint the family carried on a money-lending business in India and in the Federated Malay Slates. The business was of long standing and had been assessed to income-tax under the Act of 1918. On the 2nd June, 1938, the joint status was severed. Thereafter the members of the family continued the business in the same places as partners. The financial year with which this reference is concerned commenced on the 13th April, 1938. On the 22nd December, 1939, the petitioner claimed that the income of the family from the 13th April, 1938, to the 2nd June, 1938, was not liable to be taxed by reason of the provisions of Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Mallappa Rachappa Shetgan and ors. Vs. Shivappa Tammanna Hadnur and or ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom71
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The short question which arises in this appeal is whether a permanent lease executed by the mortgagor during the pendency of a simple mortgage binds the mortgagee or persons claiming through him. This question arises in this way :2. In the present suit the plaintiffs claimed a declaration that they were entitled to a two-thirds share in the right of occupation and enjoyment of 7 acres in S. No. 69 at Torvi and to a 4/9ths share in the mango and other fruit trees therein. They had also claimed an injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing them in the enjoyment of the said rights. The plaintiffs' case was that they had been in possession of these properties as permanent tenants since as far back as 1889. Alternatively they alleged that a permanent lease had been executed in their favour by the Jahagirdars of Darga who were the owners of this property in May 1911. At this time the property was subject to two simple mortgages which had been executed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Seshachariar Vs. T.S. Pattammal and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ65
Mack, J.1. This petition raises a point of Court-fee. Plaintiff sued for a declaration of his right to a 4th share in Gamica mirasi office in a temple, in other words, for the office of a temple-cook entitled to certain emoluments and perquisites. He valued his suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 3,100 and paid, for the declaration he sought court-fee of Rs. 100 under Article 17-B of Schedule II. He asked for certain consequential reliefs. One of them was for a direction to the temple Committee by a mandatory injunction to cancel certain orders they passed and to permit him to perform the duties of this office and enjoy all the emoluments attached to it. He valued this relief for injunction at Rs. 100 and paid a court-fee of Rs. 11-3-0. There was also another prayer for an account, with regard to the. emoluments, for the year prior to the suit with which we are not concerned.2. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld the objection of the Court-fee examiner and found that the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaranarayanan Iyer Vs. Sri Poovananathaswami Temple, Through Execut ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ171
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This case was referred to a Full Bench because Mack, J., before whom it originally came for disposal, considered it desirable that the conflict of decisions as regards maintainability of suits by de facto trustees should be resolved by reference to a Full Bench for the guidance of all courts in the Presidency. The appeal arose out of a suit filed for the recovery of possession of certain property alleged to belong to Sri Swarnamalai Kadiresan Swami Temple and alienated by one Amavasai Paradesi as its trustee to the first defendant on 13th May, 1940, under a sale deed and under an othi deed. The plaintiff was described as Sri Puvananda Swami, through its Executive Officer, C.S. Pillai. The plaintiff's right was in the main based upon the terms of a consent decree passed in O.S. No. 64 of 1937 on the file of the court of the District Munsif of Koilpatti, which was a suit filed by the plaintiff Devasthanam against Amavasai Paradesi and others for possession of the ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Narayanan Vs. the District Board by Its President
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ111
Rajagopalan, J.1. Ex. P-1 is the contract of service which the respondent, the District Board, Salem, and the plaintiff-appellant entered into for the employment of the plaintiff as the medical officer in charge of a rural dispensary for a' period of three years. The plaintiff was first posted to Elachipalayam as medical officer of the rural dispensary there. On 3rd June, 1941, the services of the plaintiff were terminated (vide Ex. P-4). On appeal to the Government, the plaintiff was reinstated in service on 31st December, 1941. He was out of office between 3rd, June, 1941 and 31st December, 1941.2. The plaintiff followed up his reinstatement by instituting the suit out of which; this second appeal arises. He claimed Rs. 287-7-0 by way of subsidy from the second defendant, Rs. 338-11-0 by way of damages from the first defendant, the District Board, and, in the alternative, the entire sum of Rs. 626-2-0 as damages from the first defendant, the District Board. The trial Court held that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6686
- 6687
- 6688
- 6689
- 6690
- 6692
- 6693
- 6694
- 6695
- 6696
- Next ›
- Last »