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
S. Narayanan Vs. the Dist. Board by Its President
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad799
Rajagopalan, J.1. Ex. P. 1 is the contract of service which the resp., the Dist. Board, Salem, & the pitf.-applt. entered into for the employment of the pltf. as the medical officer in charge of a rural dispensary for a period of three years. The pltf. was first posted to Elachipalayam as medical officer of the rural dispensary there. On 3-6-1941, the services of the pltf, were terminated (vide Ex. P. 4). On appeal to the Govt. the pltf. was reinstated in service on 31-12-1941. He was out of office between 3-6-1941 & 31-12-1941.2. The pltf. folld. 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 deft. 2, Rs. 338-11-0 by way of damages from deft. 1 the Dist. Board, &, in the alternative, the entire sum of Rs. 626-2-0 as damages from deft. 1, the District Board. The trial Ct. held that the dismissal of the pltf. was wrongful; but the learned Dist. Munsif upheld deft. 1's contention, that the suit was barred...
Tag this Judgment!Kandi Parambath Elaya Nayan Veetil Thalakurussi Atchuthan Nair Vs. Vel ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ129
Rajagopalan, J.1. On 11th August 1936, there was a preliminary decree to enforce the mortgage deed, dated 15th March, 1933, executed by the defendant-appellant in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in second appeal. There was a final decree on 17th March, 1937, for the sale of the hypotheca. The defendant subsequently applied to have the decree debt scaled down under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (IV of 1938). That application was allowed by the trial Court on 27th December, 1938 and the decree debt was scaled down to Rs. 427-3-0. Against that order the decree-holder filed A.S. No. 190 of 1939 to the District Judge who held that the decree debt ought to be scaled down to Rs. 751-9-8. This was on 22nd March, 1938. Against the decree of the appellate Court in A.S. No. 190 of 1939 the defendant filed a second appeal. On 13th July, 1942, the High Court set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court in A.S. No. 190 of 1939 on the ground that the appellate Court h...
Tag this Judgment!Vemasani Narasamma Vs. Vemasani Rama Naidu and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ251
Govinda Menon, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in the District Court of Nellore in O.P. No. 137 of 1946, which was a petition filed finder Section 62 of the Indian Lunacy Act, praying the Court to make an inquisition about the lunacy of one Vemasani China Rama Naidu and to adjudge him as a lunatic. The further prayers were that in case he is adjudged a lunatic, a manager to manage his estate may be appointed. 2. The learned District Judge after following a certain procedure about which it will be necessary to mention something hereafter, came to the conclusion that this. China Rama Naidu was a lunatic and he was adjudged as such. As a result of this finding, he appointed the mother, Vemasani Narasamma, who was the first respondent in the Court below and the appellant in this appeal, as the personal guardian of the lunatic and the Government Pleader of Nellore as the manager of the properties of the said lunatic.3. Mr. T. Venkatadri appearing for the appellant, who, as stated...
Tag this Judgment!Kandi Parambath Elaya Nayan Veetil Talakurussi Atchuthan Nair Vs. Vell ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad199
Rajagopalan, J.1. On 11th August 1936, there was a preliminary decree to enforce the mortgage deed dated 15th March 1933 executed by the defendant appellant in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in second appeal. There was a final decree on 17th March 1937 for the sale of the hypotheca. The defendant subsequently applied to have the decree debt scaled down under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (IV [4] of 1938). That application was allowed by the trial Court on 27th December 1938 and the decree debt was scaled down to Rs. 427-3. Against that order the decree-holder filed A. S. No. 190 of 1939 to the District Judge who held that the decree debt ought to be scaled down to Rs. 751-9-8. This was on 22nd March 1938. Against the decree of the appellate Court in A. S. No. 190 of 1939 the defendant filed a second appeal. On 13th July 1942 the High Court set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court in A. S. No. 190 of 1939 on the ground that the appellate Court had ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: I.V. Subba Rao
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1950CriLJ156; (1949)1MLJ600
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. In this case the petitioner has been convicted under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one and a half month's rigorous imprisonment by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, and it was confirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge of East Godavari.2. The petitioner who was a station-master at Dwarapudi was charge-sheeted by the Special Police Establishment for having accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 10 on 23rd April, 1947, from P.W. 2 for booking two iron machinery parts to Bezwada. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the case as the main point on which the revision was argued is one of sanction. The sanction which is required for prose . cuting the petitioner under Act II of 1947 is contained in Ex. P-4 which is as follows:No. P. 426. Madras,22nd July, 1947ToThe Deputy Superintendent of Police,Special Police Establishment, Vepery, Madras.Dear Sir,Ref: I.V. Subba Rao--Station-master, Dwarapudi.With reference to your letter C. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sashi Ammal Vs. Ps. Ar. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar by Agent, Sivaraman C ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ658
Rajagopalan, J.1. The statement of the plaintiff's claim as embodied in the decree in O.S. No. 452 of 1933 was ' defendants have executed a security bond charging the suit properties for the suit debt and other debts. The plaintiff prays for a charge on the plaint properties.' After decreeing the claim on the promissory note executed by defendants 1 and 2, the operative portion of the decree with reference to the charge referred to above ran:It is further ordered that the plaint properties hereunder described shall be sold for the realisation of the decree amount. There was no specific provision in the decree calling upon the fifth defendant apart from her liability under the security bond, to pay any portion of the amount, decreed.2. The decree-holder filed E.P. No. 448 of 1943 to realise the amount decreed by the sale of the properties on which a charge had been created. On 7th April, 1944, the decree-holder applied in E.A. No. 445 of 1944 to reduce the upset price. In opposing that ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Tapeswari D/O Madho Kairi Vs. Sm. Sukharajia
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal432
ORDER1. This application is for revision of an order of the Dist. J. 24-'Parganas, summarily dismissing an application under Section 192, Succession Act.2. One Ramchiz died intestate on 22-12-1948, leaving certain movable & immovable properties. The petitioner before us Sm. Tapeswari claims to be the sole heir of Ramchiz, being his sister, & thus entitled to succeed to his estate under Act II (2) of 1929. She alleged that the properties left by Ramchiz were in the possession of one Sukharajia, who had been Ramchiz's concubine & was not legally entitled to any part of the properties & that there was risk that by the time the petitioner could obtain letters of administration, the properties, or a greater portion of it would be wasted. She therefore made an application under Section 192, Succession Act.3. On such an application being made, the Dist. J. had to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 193, Succession Act. According to this section the Dist. J. has first to exami...
Tag this Judgment!Subodh Chandra Mukherjee Vs. Sudhir Kumar Basu and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal209,54CWN106
Das Gupta, J.1. This application is direct, ed against an order setting aside under Section 151, Civil P. C., an order of dismissal of an application under Section 174 (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. It appears that the application for setting aside the sale was put up before the Munsif on 1st March 1947, and on that date, hearing was adjourned to 28th April 1947, 'for orders awaiting reciept of the record from the appellate Court.' The case was, however, never put up on 28th April because on an earlier date it was dismissed for default. The circumstances under which it was dismissed for default are peculiar. It appears that after the Court had, on 1st March 1947, adjourned the case to 28th April 1947, the records on being received from the High Court were put up before the Munsif on 14th March 1947. On that date, apparently in the absence of either party, the Munsif passed the following orders:'Applicants are directed to take necessary steps for service of fresh notice upon opposite ...
Tag this Judgment!Sashi Bhusan Dey and ors. Vs. Rai Chand Bural and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal333
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 12th March 1946 is respect of premises No. 21, Madan Gopal Lane, Calcutta, and for compensation for the delay in executing the conveyance and for turning out the trespassers. The agreement is in writing signed by Rai Chand Bural, Kissen Chand Bural and Bissen Chand Bural. They are the vendors and plaintiff Rai Bahadur Soshi Bhusan Dey is the purchaser. The agreement provides that the vendors shall sell the said premises to the Rai Bahadur free from all encumbrances at a price of Rs. 45,000 and that the vendors shall within 15 days deliver all documents of title and shall at their expense make out a marketable title and cause the property to be freed from all encumbrances. The agreement also provides that the conveyance is to be executed in favour of Rai Bahadur or his nominee or nominees. The sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid as earnest money and in part-payment of the purchase price on...
Tag this Judgment!Joy Chand Lal Babu Vs. Kamalaksha Chaudhury
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR964
Orders passed in revision do not fall within Section 109(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, 100S. Section 109(e) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1008, is wide enough to cover an appeal from; an order made in revision.Although error in a decision of a subordinate Court does not by itself involve that the subordinate Court has acted illegally or with material irregularity so as to justify interference in revision under Section 115(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, nevertheless if the erroneous decision results in the subordinate Court exercising a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, of failing to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, a ease for revision arises under Sub-section (b) or Sub-section. (6) of Section 115 of the Code, and Sub-section (c) of the section can be ignored.Babu Ram v. Munna Lal I.L.R. (1927) All. 454 and Hari Bhikaji v. Naro Vishvanath I.L.R. (1885) Bom. 432 disapproved.Rajah Amir Hussan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh (1884) L.R. 11 IndAp 237 and Balakrishna Udayar v. Vusude...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6687
- 6688
- 6689
- 6690
- 6691
- 6693
- 6694
- 6695
- 6696
- 6697
- Next ›
- Last »