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
Rajmal Paharchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1950]18ITR1(P& H)
HARNAM SINGH, J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad bench, under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The questions referred for decision to the high court are :'(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case and in view of the terms of section 25A of the Act, an order under section 25A should have been passed by the Income-tax Officer in respect of the assessment year 1943-44 although the partition the partition on the basis of which the order was claimed took place beyond the year of account, the income from which was the subject-matter of assessment ?(2) Whether a reference to arbitration with a view to have the joint family property partitioned in definite portions legally amounts to a partition of the joint family property amongst the various members or groups of members in definite portions within the terms of sections (1), of the act ?'The facts so far as material are that the applicant were assessed as Hindu undivided family during the year...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn and ors. Vs. Balabh Das and ors.
Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950HP6
Bannerji, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of Appeal, exercising original jurisdiction, dated 31st July 1948, whereby the plaintiffs suit was decreed with costs. 2. The plaintiffs brought the suit for a declaration of their title to sixteen bighas and odd of agricultural land in village Kumin on the allegation that they had perfected a title by prescription for a period of over twenty years. Out of 10 defendants, only a few contested and have resisted the suit on various grounds. The principal grounds were two : '(1) That the plaintiffs' adverse possession did not have all the qualities of adequacy, continuity and exclusiveness, which should qualify such adverse possession. (2) That the plaintiffs' adverse possession was founded on benami transaction and therefore, according to law of Mandi, the benami transaction being void, the adverse possession can have no legal basis.'3. The facts of the case are that the disputed land belonged to one Gadru, who, on...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. Ishrat HusaIn and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All658
P.L. Bhargava, J.1. Qazi Saulat Husain was the zamindar and lambardar of village Kishanpur-Faridpur-Das. On 5 11-1936, he granted a theka of his entire zamindari share in the village, which was assessed to land-revenue amounting to Rs. 200, for a period of eight years, reserving an annual rant at of Rs. 500. After the death of Saulat Husain, on the expiry of the period of the theka, Qazi Ishrat Husain and others, the opposite party, as his heirs and legal representatives, instituted a suit in the revenue Court for ejectment, under Section 214, U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, against Hafiz Mohammad Ibrahim, the thekadar, who is the applicant before us. The suit was contested by the thekadar on the ground that the lessor had renewed the theka for a further period of five years, on the original terms. An issue about proprietary title, which arose in the suit, was decided by the civil Court under Section 286 (2) of the Act, and thereafter the suit was decreed. 2. The suit filed by the plaintiffs-...
Tag this Judgment!Labh Singh Vs. Sarjit Singh and anr.
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H401
1. This appeal has arisen under the following circumstances. One Bubedar Bhan Singh, a Thind Jat of the village Dialpura in Pargana Utalan in Tahsil Samrala of Ludhiana District, died on 16th January 1941 leaving him surviving three sons, namely, Labh Singh, Surjit Singh and Bakhatawar Singh. Of these Labh Singh was from one mother, namely, Mt. Bishni while Surjit Singh and Bakhatawar Singh were from another mother, namely, Mt Santi. Bhan Singh left considerable movable and immovable property. On his death the mutation in respect of a part of the landed property left by him was sanctioned in the names of his three sons in equal shares. In November 1944, Labh Singh brought the suit which has given rise to the present appeal for possession of a 1/6th share of the land in respect of which mutation had been sanctioned and for a declaration of his title to a one-half share in the other land left by his father. He also claimed a one-half share in the movable property left by the latter. The ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Perumal Mudaliar Vs. the Province of Madras, Represented by the Dir ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ156
Subba Rao, J.1. The only point that arises in this appeal is whether the suit contract is valid, and whether it complies with the provisions of Section 175 of the Government of India Act, 1935.2. The defendant is a merchant carrying on business in Coimbatore. The Government required groundnut oil for use in the Government Oil Factory at Calicut. The superintendent of the Kerala Soap Institute wrote Ex. P-1 dated.12th May, 1942, to the defendant asking him to quote his lowest rate for supplying 40 tons of expeller quality groundnut oil for prompt supply. The defendant by his letter, Ex. P-2 dated 15th May, 1942, offered to supply 40 tons of expeller groundnut oil at the rate of Rs. 369 per nett ton of 2,240 lbs., if barrels were supplied by the Superintendent. He agreed to deliver the said oil within three months after acceptance. The defendant received the letter, Ex. P-9, dated 21st May, 1942, from the Superintendent of the Kerala Soap Institute, wherein the latter stated that he test...
Tag this Judgment!K. Perumal Mudaliar Vs. Province of Madras, Represented by the Directo ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad194
Subba Rao, J.1. The only point that arises in this appeal is whether the suit contract is valid, and whether it complies with the provisions of Section 175, Government of India Act, 1935.2. The defendant is merchant carrying on business in Coimbatore. The Government required groundnut oil for use in the Government Oil Factory at Calicut. The Superintendent of the Kerala Soap Institute wrote EX. p.-1 dated 12th May 1942, to the defendant asking him to quote his lowest rate for supplying 40 tons of expeller quality groundnut oil for prompt supply. The defendant by his letter, Ex. P.-2, dated 15th May 1942, offered to supply 40 tons of expeller groundnut oil at the rate of Rs. 369 per nett ton of 2240lbs, if barrels were supplied by the Superintendent. He agreed to deliver the said oil within three months after acceptance. The defendant received the letter, EX. P.-9, dated 21st May 1942, from the Superintendent of the Kerala Soap Institute, wherein the latter stated that he tested the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaysingrao Balasaheb Shinde Desai Vs. Janardanrao Narayanrao Shinde ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom314; (1949)51BOMLR556
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and for possession of his half share in the properties in suit. The plaintiff's ease was that these properties were joint family properties, and the joint family consisted of his father Narayanrao, his elder brother Balasaheb and himself. Narayanrao died in 1927, Balasaheb died on January 5, 1934, and according to the plaintiff he became the karta of the family on the death of Balasaheb. Balasaheb left two sons, defendants Nos. 1 and 2. According to the plaintiff, there were disputes between him and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and hence he filed a suit for partition. He also in this suit challenged various alienations made by his father Narayanrao and brought the alienees on the record of the suit. The defence of defendant No. 1 was that the properties in suit were watan properties, they were impartible and governed by the rule of primogeniture, and therefore on the death of Narayanrao, Balasaheb woul...
Tag this Judgment!Rashid Ahmed Vs. Sahu Bisheshwar Dayal
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All554
Seth, J.1. This is an unfortunate case,' but it appears that the appellant himself is greatly responsible for his misfortune.2. The appellant applied under Section 20, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act praying that the proceedings be quashed. The Special Judge allowed the application on 14th December 1946 in the following words:The application is allowed. The proceedings under Section 20, Encumbered Estates Act will stand-quashed subject to payment of taxable costs of the opposite parties by the applicant within a month from today. The office will mention the costs in the formal order to be prepared in connection with this order. If the costs are not paid within the aforesaid time, the application will stand dismissed with costs to opposite parties.This order did not comply strictly with the requirements of Section 20, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act which gives powers to the Special Judge to pass such order as to costs of the proceedings as he thinks proper and provides that the order for quash...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Yakub Khan Vs. Sirajul Haq and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All771
Agarwala, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision against an order of the Civil Judge of Aligarh dated 16th January 1947 where. by he allowed an appeal against an order of the Munsif of Koil who had rejected the application of the plaintiff-opposite party for setting aside an award. The suit was referred to arbitration on the statements of the counsel for the parties. This statement was recorded not by means of an application but upon a court rubkar and was signed by the parties in the presence of the Court. The arbitrator so appointed made an award. Both parties raised objections to it. The objection of the defendant-applicant merely related to the order regarding costs in the award. The objections of the plaintiff-opposite party were several but we are concerned only with his objection that the reference to arbitration was invalid, as it was not in writing, as required by the Arbitration Act. The objection of the defendant applicant, with regard to costs, was overruled and...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chandra Dutta Vs. Haran Chandra Mete and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal322,54CWN164
Das Gupta, J.1. This Rule raises the question whether the Court, in ordering delivery of possession under Order 21, Rule 95, Civil P. C. can order removal of the huts standing on the land, where the auction-purchaser, who asked for delivery of possession, had purchased the land but had not purchased the huts.2. The words of Order 21, Rule 95 make provision for removing any person who refuses to vacate the property of which possession is to be given. Specific provision has not, however, been made therein for removal of any structures.3. Reliance is placed by Mr. Bakshi, on behalf of the petitioner, on the observations of Rankin C. J. in the case of The Government of Bengal v. Alimaddin : AIR1933Cal469 , which though a criminal case, did raise this question of the duties of the Court's officers acting under a writ under Order 21, Rule 95, Civil P. C. The question which arose there was whether the accused persons had any right of private defence against the act of the officer in demolishi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6695
- 6696
- 6697
- 6698
- 6699
- 6701
- 6702
- 6703
- 6704
- 6705
- Next ›
- Last »