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
Ram Bilas Gupta Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All748
ORDERBind Basni Prasad, J. 1. This is a habeas corpus application cinder Section 491, Criminal P.C., by one Ram Bilas Gupta of Basti. It appears that on 15th December 1948, he was arrested but was released at 7 P.M., on day following. At that time there was no warrant for his arrest and no order passed under the U.P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act, 1947. On 31st December 1948, the District Magistrate passed an order under Section 3 (2) of the Act and the applicant was arrest-d and detained for a period of fifteen days. On 8th January 1949, the Provincial Government passed an order of detention under Clause (a) of (Sub-section (1) of Rule 8 of the Act and directed the detention of the applicant for a period of six months. The same day the grounds of detention under Section 5 of the Act were drawn up and communicated to the applicant a few days later. These grounds are as follows:You took a leading part in instigating the sweepers at Basti to stage an illegal strike on 13th ...
Tag this Judgment!Maria Pillai and anr. Vs. Muthukumaran and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ104
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The appellants in this second appeal are the sons of one Kumaraswami Pillai and are aggrieved at the joint family properties in their hands being proceeded against for recovering the decree amount in O.S. No. 60 of 1932, on the file of the District Munsiff's Court Kallakurichi. That suit was filed against Kumaraswami Pillai, the father of the appellants, by one Ayya Pillai, an immediate endorsee of a promissory note executed in favour of Kumaraswami Pillai by someperson and endorsed by him for valuable consideration. The trial Court dismissed that suit; but, on appeal, a. decree was passed, in 1937, in favour of the plaintiff By that time, Kumaraswami had died. So, the decree was passed against the assets of the deceased Kumaraswami Pillai in the hands of his sons and grand sons, defendants 2 to.6 in the suit. The decree was sought to be executed by attaching and bringing to sale the join family properties in the hands of those defendants. The appellants, the t...
Tag this Judgment!Clement Aaron Vs. Kallat Pathanhara Veethil Chatu Nayar and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ106
Subba Rao, J.1. The only question in this revision is whether the petitioner who is a lessee for the purpose of constructing a smithy is a tenant within the meaning of the Malabar Tenancy Act. Under the document the respondent took pos-session of the land from the landlord for two years for the purpose of erecting a smithy agreeing to pay a rent of Rs. 6 per year in the paramba belonging to the landlord. The tenant is defined in the Malabar Tenancy Act under Clause (v) of Section 3 which reads as follows:'Tenant' means any person who has paid or has agreed to pay rent, or other consideration for his being allowed by another, to enjoy the land of the latter, and includes an intermediary, a kanomdar, a kuzhikanomdar, and a verumpattamdar of any description.The respondents in this case are clearly persons who agreed to pay rent for their, being allowed to enjoy the lands, and, therefore, prima facie, they are tenants within the meaning of clause .2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Rajlakshmi Dassi and ors. Vs. Banamali Sen and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal510
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. Banamali San and Manamatha Nath Sen, sons of late Bholanath Sen, instituted in the second Court of the Munsif of Sealdah a suit for the declaration of a document of surrender by Rajlakshmi Dasi in favour of her sons as collusive and fraudulent. It is not disputed before me that the deed was executed at a place which is outside the jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsif of Sealdah and within the jurisdiction of the original side of the Calcutta High Court. This was, however, registered at the Sealdah Sub-Registrar's office which is within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsiff, Sealdah. It is stated that by this deed the mother surrendered her rights to a large sum of money awarded as compensation on the acquisition of land which was lying in deposit with the President of the Calcutta Improvement Trust Tribunal. It further appears that certain other immovable properties within the jurisdiction of the Sealdah Mansif's Court were also surrendered by this docume...
Tag this Judgment!Karra Lakshminarasimhayya Vs. Sri Mahant Prayag Dossjee Varu (Since De ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ107
Mack, J.1. The petitioner is a teacher in the TT.D. High School, Tirupathi, drawing a salary of Rs. 52. On a decree obtained against him in a suit filed prior to Ist June, 1937, Rs. 7-8-0 of his salary was attached on a content order passed by the District Court of Chittoor in C.M.A. No. 35 of 1937 on 11th January, 1938. In an, execution petition filed in 1944 by the decree-holder the District Munsiff held that the salary of the judgment-debtor was attachable despite the Amending Act V of 1943 which repealed Act IX of 1937. Both Acts made very important exemptions from attachment in the case of all persons, whether public officers or not, drawing a salary of less than Rs. 100. Section 3 of the Act IX of 1937 made the amendments inapplicable to proceedings arising out of any suit instituted before Ist June, 1937. This Act was one of those repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act XXV of 1942, and a further Act, Act V of 1943, further amending Section 60, Civil Procedure Code, was subse...
Tag this Judgment!Kota Ananda Krishna Chetty Vs. M.K. and Company Alias Mahomed Kasim an ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ138
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of a non-residential building in China Bazaar Road, and the respondent is his tenant. He applied to the Rent Controller, for an order of eviction on the ground that he required it for the purpose of carrying on his business as a diamond merchant. The respondent inter alia contended that the petitioner was in occupation of a building in. Neelakanta Mehta Street, Thyagarayanagar, where he was carrying on his business; and therefore he was not entitled to the relief he sought. The Second Additional Rent Controller, on the evidence, found that the petitioner was in occupation of a portion of a residential house in Thyagarayanagar, and that he bona fide' required the premises for his own business. He found, therefore, that the petitioner was not occupying a non-residential building for the purpose of the business which he was carrying on, and in accordance with Section 7(3)(a)(ii) of Madras Act. XV of 1946 he directed the r...
Tag this Judgment!Bahinabai Shravan Patil Vs. Kisanlal Kunjilal Shet and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom47
Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question as to the rights of a Hindu son in his natural family on his adoption. One Fakira Shravan mortgaged certain lands to defendant 1 on 18th April 1925, and he was given in adoption on 9th December 1927. Defendant 1 obtained a decree on his mortgage in special Suit No. 987 of 1931 against Fakira and in execution proceedings defendant 1 purchased the property. Bahinabai then filed a suit from which this appeal arises for a declaration that the decree passed in the mortgage suit was not binding on her and that she was entitled to the mortgaged property and that defendant 1 had no right, title and interest in that property. Bahinabai's contention was that on Fakira's adoption the equity of redemption in the mortgaged property was divestad from Fakira and became vested in her, and as she was not a party to the suit, the mortgage decree could not be binding on her; and the question that arises for our determination is whether on the adop...
Tag this Judgment!Govindram Bros. Ltd. Vs. Official Assignee
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom49
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thana, in a suit filed by the plaintiff under Section 15D, Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1879. The plaintiff had executed two mortgages in favour of the defendant, one on 16th September 1943, for the amount of Rs. 3,00,000 and another on 18th December 1943, for the amount of Rs. 60,000. Some of the properties were situate in Bombay and some in the istrict of Thana. Both these mortgages were in the English form and conferred on the mortgagee the right to sell the property in the event of there being a default on the part of the mortgagor to pay the amount on the due date and also if ertain amount of interest remained in arrears. The defendant, as the mortgagor was in default, threatened to sell the mortgaged properties under his power of sale and advertised the sale in the papers. Thereupon the plaintiff filed a suit n the Thana Court under Section 15D claiming an account under the mortgage and a...
Tag this Judgment!Aniruddha Mitra Vs. Administrator General Bengal
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR971
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Calcutta in its appellate jurisdiction dated April 5, 1946, which affirmed a judgment and decree of that Court in its original jurisdiction dated March 28, 1945.2. The appeal arises out of a suit by way of originating summons instituted by the appellant for the construction of the will of his father the late Rai Bihari Lal Mitra.3. The facts are not in dispute. The testator was a wealthy Hindu governed by the-Dayabhaga School of Hindu law. He died on February 7, 1933, leaving him surviving his widow Sreemutty Nayani Mitra, his only son the appellant Aniruddha Mitra, and the wife of the appellant, Sreemutty Nivanani Mitra.4. At the time of the testator's death the appellant and his wife had no children. On July 4, 1934, the appellant took respondent No. 2 Aiabinda Mitra in adoption as his son. He was born on October 19, 1932.5. On July 5, 1931, the testator executed his last will whereby he appointed r...
Tag this Judgment!Jeewan and anr. Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1949CriLJ884
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Jeewan, Mukhram and Baru appeal against their conviction under 8.366, Penal Code and sentence of five years' R.I .. for having abducted Mt. Shanti from village Rohana on 24th September 1947.2. Mt. Shanti used to live with her father Manphool in village Rohana. She was recovered from the house of Baru, appellant, on the evening of 29th September 1947. Baru gave out that he had purchased her for Ks. 800 from Mukhram. Mt. Shanti alleged that she had been forcibly lifted and carried by Mukhram and Jeewan from a grove of village Rohana, that Baru met Jee-wan and Mukhram 'after a mile Cr so and that Jeewan then returned to Robana and Baru and Mukhram took her to village Lohari where they reside, The village people held a Panchayat and seemed to have gone into the matter thoroughly, Manphool, the father of the girl, was called the next mCrning. On 80th September, they again discussed the matter and finally Baru, Mukhram and Mt. Shanti were sent to police outpost at Charth...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6698
- 6699
- 6700
- 6701
- 6702
- 6704
- 6705
- 6706
- 6707
- 6708
- Next ›
- Last »