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
Shaligram Khemraj and ors. Vs. State
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950MP11; 1950CriLJ660
Mehta, J.1. Nine detenus, Shaligram, Narendra, Chunnilal Sukhdeo, Dashrath, Balkrishna, Badrilal, Harcharanlal & Kishanlal were arrested by Sub-Inspector Cube on 7th March 1949, Under Section 8 (1)(a), Madhya Bharat Maintenance of Public Order Act, Samvat 3005 and have been detained in Central Jail. The District Magistrate served the grounds on all the detenus on nth March except in the case of detenu Sukhdeo who was served with the grounds on 18th March 1919, Under Section 5 of the Aot. It was contended by Mr. Daji Homi that the grounds supplied Under Section 5 of the Act are not sufficient compliance with the mandatory provisions of 8 5. He further contended that the grounds supplied by the District Magistrate, District Indore to the detenus on 11th March 1049, are vague and the detenus are not in position to make representation without knowing the particulars of the grounds. He contended that the detenus are not in a position to know the grounds on which the order has been made agai...
Tag this Judgment!Urdu Daily Newspaper pratap Vs. the Crown
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1949CriLJ813
1. This is an application under S. 23, Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931 (Act XXIII [28] of 1981) for setting aside an order of forfeiture of security made on 16th May 1948.2. The petitioner before us, Shri K. Narendra, is the editor, printer and publisher of an made on 9fch February 1948 by Mr. S. Khurshid, Chief Commissioner, Delhi, the Petitioner, as the publisber of that newspaper, was required to deposit security of Rs. 3,000. On 18th February 1948 the security so demanded was duly deposited. By an order, being order No. F. 8 (11)/48- Press, Passed on 15th May 1948 the aforesaid Chief Commissioner, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section 1 (a) of s. 8, Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931 declared the said security as forfeited to His Majesty. The ground for Such forfeited, as recited in the order itself headed 'Ek Dukhi Dil Ki Pur Dard Pukar' and a news time headed 'Maulana Azad Aur Kidwai Working Committee Se walk out Kar Gae' respectively containing matter of the nature...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramiah and ors. Vs. the Chief Secretary to the Government of Madras ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ61
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The applicants in all these applications are Indians- : who were living in Malaya for some years, and as they were engaged in, Malaya in Communist activities, the Malayan Government seems to have detained some of the important leaders under the Malayan Emergency Regulations. But as they are Indian nationals, the Malayan Government released them and repatriated them. The applicants along with others arrived in India by S.S. Vasna in. November, 1948. Immediately after their arrival, on the 19th November, 1948, they were arrested by the police in Madras and were detained in custody. They were later produced before the Commissioner of Police, Madras, who remanded; them for 9 days, and the period of remand was later extended by a further order. On the 30th November, 1948 orders of detention under Madras Act I of 1947 were passed by His Excellency the Governor of Madras under Section 2(1) of the Act directing the detention of the applicants in the Central Jail, Vellor...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnammal Ammal Vs. Modern Stores Through Partner Mahadeva Iyer and or ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ142
Mack, J.1. Petitioner is the second defendant in a small cause suit filed by the Modern Stores, Tirunelveli, to recover about Rs. 1,400 in respect of cloth and other goods supplied to her brother the third defendant. The first defendant is the son of the second defendant. The third defendant who had a power of attorney from his sister according to the plaintiff-shop, on the strength of this authority made those purchases for the marriage of his own daughter, the first defendant. In the suit defendants 2 and 3 endeavoured to evade liability, second defendant alleging that her brother had exceeded his powers and acted in these purchases for himself and so on. It is clear that subsequent to the marriage misunderstandings broke out between brother and sister which sought a solution in the present suit.2. This revision petition seeks to revise a rather curious finding pronounced by the learned District Munsif after plaintiff's evidence was completed as regards the admissibility of evidence ...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnammal Ammal Vs. Modern Stores, Through Partner Mahadeva Iyer and o ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad62
ORDERMack, J.1. Petitioner is defendant 2 in a small cause suit filed by the Modern Stores, Tirunelveli, to recover about Rs. 1400 in respect of cloth and other goods supplied to her brother defendant 3 Defendant 1 is the son of defendant 2. Defendant 3 who had a power of attorney from his sister according to the plaintiff shop, on the strength of this authority made those purchases for the marriage of his own daughter to defendant 1. In the suit defendants 2 and 3 endeavoured to evade liability, defendant 2 alleging that her brother had exceeded his powers and acted in these purchases for himself and so on. It is clear that subsequent to the marriage misunderstandings broke out between brother and sister which sought a solution in the present suit.2. This revision petition seeks to revise a rather curious finding pronounced by the learned District Munsif after plaintiff's evidence was completed as regards the admissibility of evidence relating to some private settlement of accounts as...
Tag this Judgment!Venneti Sundara Rama Rao Vs. Chamarti Satyanarayanamurti Being Minor b ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ199
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the adoption of the second defendant by the first defendant is valid. The adoption was upheld by the Subordinate Judge and his decision was confirmed by Rajamannar, J. (as he then was). The question, received, if I may say so with respect, an exhaustive and careful consideration, by the learned Judge in the judgment now under appeal and as I am agreeing with his decision, it is unnecessary to consider the question elaborately in this judgment. As the question raised, however, is of considerable importance and is not covered by any decision, I should like to state, in my own wprds, the reasons for my conclusion. 2. The first defendant's husband, the late Hari Govindarao, died on the 14th of November, 1937. The plaintiff is his undivided brother. Both of them are the sons of one Veerabadra Raju, who was the son by the first wife of one Govinda Raju. Govinda Raju married a second wife Bangara...
Tag this Judgment!Venneti Sundara Rama Rao Vs. Chamarti Satyanarayanamurthi Being Minor ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad74
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the adoption of defendant 2 by defendant 1 in valid The adoption was upheld by the Subordinate Judge and his decision was confirmed by Rajamannar J. (as he then was). The question received, if I may say so with respect, an exhaustive and careful consideration by the learned Judge in the judgment now under appeal; as I am agreeing with his decision, it is unnecessary to consider the question elaborately in this judgment. As the question raised, however, is of considerable importance and is not covered by any decision, I should like to state, in my own words, the reasons for my conclusion.2. Defendant 1's husband, the late Hari Govindorao, died on 14th November 1937. The plaintiff is his undivided brother. Both of them are the sons of one Veerabadra Raju, who was the son by the first wife of one Govinda Raju. Govinda Raju married a second wife, Bangaramma. It has been found that Govinda Raj...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramiah and ors. Vs. Chief Secretary to the Government of Madras and ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad100
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The applicants in all these applications are Indians who were living in Malaya for some years, and as they were engaged in Malaya in Communist activities, the Malayan Government seems to have detained some of the important leaders under the Malayan Emergency Regulations. But as they are Indian nationals, the Malayan Government released them and repatriated them. The applicants along with others arrived in India by S. S. Vasna in November 1948. Immediately after the arrival, on 19th November 1948 they were arrested by the police in Madras and were detained in custody. They were later produced before the Commissioner of Police, Madras, who remanded them for 9 days, and the period of remand was later extended by a further order. On 30th November 1948 orders of detention under Madras Act I [1] of 1947 were passed by His Excellency the Governor of Madras under Section 2 (1) of the Act directing the detention of the applicants in the Central Jail, Vellore. The grounds...
Tag this Judgment!Aniruddha Mitra Vs. the Administrator General of Bengal and Others
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1949PC244
Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Calcutta in its appellate jurisdiction dated 5th April 1946, which affirmed a judgment and decree of that Court in its original jurisdiction dated 28th March 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 facia are not in dispute. The testator was a wealthy Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law. He died on 7th February 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 4th July 1934, the appellant took respondent 2 Arabinda Mitra in adoption as his son. He was born on 19th October 1932. [5] On 5th July 1931, the testator executed his last will whereby he app...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwandas Vs. the King
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR970
Oaksey, J.1. Special leave to appeal was granted in this case without their Lordships being acquainted with the necessary documents, which were no doubt not available. Leave was granted limited to the question of whether or not the proceedings were valid having regard to the fact that the appeal was signed and filed in the High Court by the Advocate General and not by the Public Prosecutor.2. The relevant documents have now been produced before their Lordships, and the facts are as follows.3. By the Government of India Act, 1935, it was provided by Section 55 that every Province was to have an Advocate-General. On April 1, 1987, the Government of India Act came into force. On April 3, 1937, a notification in the Gazette provided that in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 492 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) 1898, the Governor of the Punjab is pleased to appoint the Advocate General of the Punjab to be a Public Prosecutor generally for the Punjab. On April 5, 1937, two...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6699
- 6700
- 6701
- 6702
- 6703
- 6705
- 6706
- 6707
- 6708
- 6709
- Next ›
- Last »