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
Gannamani Ramanna as Representing the General Body of Creditors Vs. Do ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ128
1. The relevant facts are these. In O.S. No. 121 of 1936, on the file of the District Munsif, Tanuku, the plaintiff, a creditor, obtained attachment before judgment of certain properties alleged to belong to the defendant. One Donga Suramma then intervened with a petition claiming that the properties belonged to her and asked for cancellation of the order of attachment. Her request was refused. Thereupon, she filed a regular suit, O.S. No. 389 of 1937, to establish her title to the properties and to this suit, both the attaching creditor and the defendant were made parties. The defendant in O.S. No. 121 of 1936 became insolvent and subsequently died. Thereupon an application was made to add the Official Receiver as a party. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the following recital occurs:Therefore, the Official Receiver, West Godavari, had to be included in his representative capacity as a third defendant in this suit in the place of the second defendant and the furth...
Tag this Judgment!Gannamani Ramanna as Representing the General Body of Creditors in I.P ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad184
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The relevant facts are these: In O. S. No. 121 of 1936, on the file of the District Munsif, Tanuku, the plaintiff, a creditor, obtained attachment before judgment of certain properties alleged to belong to the defendant. One Donga Suramma then intervened with a petition claiming that the properties belonged to her and asked for cancellation of the order of attachment. Her request was refused. Thereupon, she filed a regular suit, O. S. no. 389 of 1937, to establish her title to the properties and to this suit, both the attaching creditor and the defendant were made parties. The defendant in O. S. No. 121 of 1936 became insolvent and subsequently died. Thereupon an application was made to add the Official Receiver as a party. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the following recital occurs:'Therefore, the Official Receiver, West Godavari, bad to be included in his representative capacity as defendant 3 in this suit in the place of defendant 2 and...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver and anr. Vs. Sakkuwar Bai Ammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ425
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The only point for determination in this second appeal is whether the lower Courts went wrong in holding that a landholder who had obtained a decree against a tenant, under the Madras Estates Land Act, but has afterwards ceased to be his landholder, and the relationship between the landholder and tenant has ceased to exist, cannot execute the decree in a Revenue Court and realise his arrears in a revenue sale and should execute it in a Civil Court. The lower Courts relied on the rulings in Sundaram Ayyar v. Kulathu Ayyar (1915) 29 M.L.J. 505 : I.L.R. 39 Mad 1018 and Suramma v. Suriyanarayana Fagapathiraju (1918) 33 M.L.J. 443 : I.L.R. 42 Mad 114. In Sundaram Ayyar v. Kulathu Ayyar (1915) 29 M.L.J. 505 : I.L.R. 39 Mad 1018, it has been held by a Bench of this Court that the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act do not empower a person who was a lessee of an estate, to take proceedings after the expiry of his lease to sell the tenant's holding for arrears of ...
Tag this Judgment!Official Receiver, West Tanjore and anr. Vs. Sakkuwar Bai Ammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad197
Panchapakesa Ayytar, J.1. The only point for determination in this second appeal is whether the lower Courts went wrong in holding that a landholder who had obtained a decree against a tenant, under the Madras Estates Land Act, but has afterwards ceased to be his landholder, and the relationship between the landholder and tenant has ceased to exist, cannot execute the decree in a revenue Court and realise his arrears in a revenue sale and should execute it in a civil Court. The lower Courts relied on the rulings in Sundaram Aiyar v. Kulathu Aiyar, 39 Mad 1018 : A.I.R. 1916 Mad. 540 and Suramma v. Suryanarayana Jagapathiraju, 42 Mad. 114 : A. I. R. 1919 Mad. 733. In Sundaram Aiyar v. Kulathu Aiyar, 39 Mad. 1018 : A.I.R. 1916 Mad. 540, it has been held by a Bench of this Court that the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act do not empower a person, who was a lessee of an estate, to take proceedings after the expiry of his lease to sell the tenant's holding for arrears of rent due for ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukaruppayee Achi Alias Visalakshi Achi Vs. Pothapular Pillai and o ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1949Mad834; (1949)1MLJ660
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The facts in this appeal are very peculiar. One Meyyappa Chettiar was adjudicated insolvent in I.P. No. 4 of 1936 on the file of the Sub-Court, Sivaganga. Among his properties were two items, subject to a mortgage, dated 31st March, 1925, in favour of the first respondent Pothapular Pillai, for Rs. 125. Several attempts by the Official Receiver to sell these two items for a reasonable price subject to the mortgage met with failure. So, he wrote to the Sub-Court, Sivaganga, asking for permission to sell the properties free of all encum- brances, as the first respondent, the mortgagee, was willing to bid for Rs. 200 and buy the properties and write off the rest of the amount due to him under the mortgage. It is, of course, well known that Official Receivers move the Insolvency Courts often for a sale of mortgaged properties free of encumbrance, one of the ideas in doing so being to get an extra commission. But, curiously enough, in this case, there was a comedy o...
Tag this Judgment!Chas. J. Webb Sons and Co. Inc. Philadelphia Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1950]18ITR33(P& H)
FALSHAW, J. - This is a case referred to the High Court by the Income-tax appellate tribunal of Allahabad under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act.The reference actually covers three cases relating to the same company which has been contesting its assessments for the assessment years 1940-41, 1941-42, 1942-43, the accounting years being those ending on the 31st of March, 1940, the 31st of March, 1941, and the 31st of March, 1942. The company in question is Messrs. J. Webb Sons and Co. Inc. of Philadelphia in the united states of America, its business being the manufacture of carpets. The company is represented in India by an agent named Shamji Mal of Amritsar and its only business in India has been the purchase of wool as raw material for use in the manufacture of carpets. The method by which the Income-tax payable by the company for the period in question has been assessed is as follows. The company through its agent in each year filed returns showing no income as liable to tax on th...
Tag this Judgment!Gudimetla China Varahalu Vs. Gudimetla Reddayya
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ12
1. The petitioner is a plaintiff whose application for a refund of court-fee of Rs. 277-7-o the learned Subordinate Judge rejected in a rather cryptic-order which reads as follows:The ruling does not apply to this case. Hence rejected. He does not say what the facts are or what the ruling relied on is. The facts as placed before me are briefly these:The petitioner filed a suit, against his own father for recovery of about Rs. 3,000. He paid a Court-fee of Re. 0-12-0 on his plaint and was on 13-9-1946 given seven days' time for payment of deficit court-fee. He re-presented the plaint only on 7-1-1946 accompanied by an application for condonation of the delay in re-presentation and also with deficit court-fee of Rs. 276-11-0. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed and on' application to refund the court-fee under Section 151, Civil-Procedure Code, the learned Subordinate Judge passed this order which is now sought to be revised.2. Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Court-Fees ...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Raju Chettiar and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ74
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the judgment of this Court in Referred Case No. 19 of 1946. As a question arose before us and was discussed whether an appeal lay to the Federal Court against the judgment of this Court, we may deal with the point briefly.2. Under Section 3 of Act I of 1948, as from the appointed day, that is, the first day of February, 1948, an appeal shall lie to the Federal Court from any judgment: to which the said Act applies. A ' judgment to which this Act applies ' is defined in Section 2(b) of the Act as:any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in a civil case from which a direct appeal could have been, brought to His Majesty in Council, either with or without special leave, if this Act have not been passed. Undoubtedly, the judgment of this Court was passed in a civil case, because the category of civil cases excludes only criminal cases from the application of the enactment. The question...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.S. Mani Vs. the District Magistrate and the Superintendent, Centra ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ310
Satyanarayana Rao J.1. Crl. M.P. No. 190 of 1949. This and the connected petitions under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code were heard together as they raise common questions of law under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1 of 1947.2. The facts and the contentions peculiar to the other petitions will be dealt with separately. Under Section 2(1)(a) of the Act the District Magistrate, Madura, passed an order of detention, dated 1st April, 1948, and the applicant was arrested on the same day. He was kept in police custody at Madura till the 3rd April, when he was removed to the Central Jail, Vellore. The grounds of detention were communicated to the applicant on 24th April, 1948, and he submitted his explanation on the 10th May, 1948. The Government referred the matter to the Advisory Council on 14th February, 1949 and the matter is still pending with it. This application was filed on 18th January, 1949, and till now no final order was passed by the Government under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.S. Mani Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad162
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This and the connected petitions under Section 491, Criminal P. C., were heard together as they raise common questions of law under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, I [1] of 1947.2. The facts and the contentions peculiar to the other petitions will be dealt with separately. Under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act the District Magistrate, Madura, passed an order of detention dated 1st April 1948 and the applicant was arrested on the same day. He was kept in police custody at Madura till 3rd April when he was removed to the Central Jail, Vellore. The grounds of detention were communicated to the applicant on 24th April 1948, and he submitted his explanation on 10th May 1948. The Government referred the matter to the Advisory Council on 14th February 1949 and the matter is still pending with it. This application was filed on 18th January 1949 and till now no final order was passed by the Government under Section 3 (5) of the Act.3. Mr. N. S. Mani, the learned...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6689
- 6690
- 6691
- 6692
- 6693
- 6695
- 6696
- 6697
- 6698
- 6699
- Next ›
- Last »