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
Gour Chand Malick Vs. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal478
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a taxation matter coming on a Chamber Summons sent to me for disposal by way of transfer from the list of my learned brother Banerjee as question of taxation of fees paid to him as counsel has been raised in this appln.2. The matter arises out of a mtge. Suit No. 298 of 1937 Gour Chand Mullick v. Praduymna Kumar Mullick. In that suit pltf. Gour Chand Mullick was appointed a Receiver. Pltf. Gour Chand Mullick employed Messrs. P.I. Mullick & Co , as the attorneys to act in that suit & signed a warrant of attorney in their favour. He also employed his said attorneys to act for him in his capacity as Receiver but he did not sign any fresh warrant of attorney as such receiver.3. Two points arise for determination on this appln.:(1) The Taxing Officer by his report dated 14-2-1949 has held that the costs incurred by Messrs. P.I. Mullick & Co., as Attorneys for the Receiver cannot be taxed unless there is a proper order of the Ct. directing such taxation & from who...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Sub-post Master, Dharamtola Post-office
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal417
ORDER1. This rule was issued against an order of acquittal passed by the Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta and raises some very important questions of law.2. A complaint was filed on behalf of the Corporation of Calcutta against the opposite party station inter alia that premises No. 43, Dharamtola Street, Calcutta was being used or permitted to be used as grains, flour and atta shop without taking out a license for the year 1945-46 Under Section 386, Calcutta Municipal Act. Summons was accordingly issued against the opposite party. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 1st March 1948 held that the storing of grains in the premises was by the Post and Telegraphs Department of the Government for the benefit of the employees of that Department, and not for trade, and to that purpose could not be taken to be 'storing' as contemplated Under Section 386 (1) (a), Calcutta Municipal Act; and that the prosecution was also bad in law as the relevant provisions could not bind the Crown. The Mag...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Vs. DIn Dayal
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All424
Desai, J.1. Rameshwar appellant filed one suit against Din Dayal respondent on the basis of a promissory note in August 1942. In the same month, he filed another suit on the basis of another promissory note against Din Dayal respondent in the connected second civil appeal No. 269. Rameshwar is a resident of village Nawwa Behar whereas Bhagirath and Din Dayal are residents of village Shankerpur. A process server accompanied by Rameshwar took the summonses to Shankerpur for service on Din Dayal and Bhagirath on 18.8.1942. The process server wrote identical reports on the summonses to the effect that they were offered to the defendants (Din Dayal and Bhagirath), that they refused to acceptthem in spite of his entreaties and that perforce he had to affix them on their doors. The reports purport to have been signed by the appellant and two witnesses. Neither of the respondents appeared when the suits were called cut for hearing on 16-9-1942 and the Court proceeded ex parte against them and ...
Tag this Judgment!Banwari Lal Varma Vs. Amrit Sagar Gupta and ors.
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H400
Harnam Singh, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts brought against Banwari Lal defendant by Jowala Parshad who died during the pendency of the suit. The suit was continued by Amrit Sagar, Roshan Lal and Jitendra Nath sons of Jowala Parshad. The suit proceeded on the allegation that Jowala Parshad, father of the plaintiffs and Banwari Lal defendant were partners in the business of building contracts and had equal shares in it. Jowala Parshad contributed capital for the partnership and the partnership was carried on and accounts kept by the defendant.2. Banwari Lal defendant resisted the suit and denied that there was any partnership between him and Jowala Parshad, the father of the plaintiffs. He pleaded that it was in respect of two ventures only, that Jowala Parshad had become his partner and was entitled to th share. He added that the accounts of those two ventures had been settled and partnership dissolved. Limitation was...
Tag this Judgment!Debi Pershad Vs. Choudhari Brothers Ltd. and ors.
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H357
ORDERHarnam Singh, J.1. Messrs. Chaudhari Brothers, Limited, of Narwana instituted a suit against Shri Debi Parshad for possession of the Imperial Flour Mills, revovery of Rs. 42,500 on account of arrears of rent for the period ending on 30th September 1947, Rs. 3600 on account of interest on this sum and Rs. 60,750 on account of mesne profits for the period between 1st October 1947 to 23rd April 1948. In para. 11B of the plaint plaintiffs claim mesne profits from the date of the suit till the date of the delivery of possession of the Mills.2. At the trial a preliminary objection was raised by the defendants that the suit for possession of the Imperial Flour Mills was in pith and substance a suit for the eviction of the defendant and was barred by the provisions of Section 13, Punjab Act VI [6] of 1947. Now, it is conceded that the suit for recovery of rent and mesne profits is not barred by the provisions of Section 13, Punjab Act VI [6] of 1947. What is contended is that the suit for...
Tag this Judgment!Vasavattula Sarabhamma Vs. Vasabattula Peda Veeranna and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad57
ORDERRaghava Rao, J.1. In this case I was at first inclined to think that the lower Court's order required a reversal; but on a careful comparison and contrast instituted by me between the allegations and reliefs of the plaint as originally filed in the District Munsif Court of Peddapuram and the allegations and reliefs of the plaint as presented to the Sub-Court at Coconada on return by the former Court, I am satisfied that there are substantial and material points of difference between the two plaints which preclude the application to the present case of the ruling of the Full Bench reported in Viswaswara Sarma v. T. M. Nair, 35 Mad. 567 : 10 I. C. 201 on which. strong reliance was placed by Mr. V. Suryanarayana the learned advocate for the petitioner.2. The question which arose, for decision in the Full Bench case was whether, where a Court after receiving a plaint and cancelling the stamp affixed thereto returns the plaint for presentation to the proper Court under Order 7, Rule 10...
Tag this Judgment!Herbert Richard Farrington Vs. D. Munisami and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ143
Horwill, J.1. The facts as they would appear from the judgment of the Subodinate Judge of Ootacamund are that the third defendant had erected a hedge round his field and that, despite this protection, pigs had been entering the field and causing damage to the potato crop. In order to protect the crop against pigs, the third defendant had laid a number of traps round the perimeter of his field and near the traps' had cut open the hedge, presumably in order that pigs which came there with the intention of entering the field, would enter through these gaps rather than elsewhere, in which case they would be likely to fall into the traps. The plaintiff, a neighbour, kept a cow. There is no evidence that the defendants knew of the existence of the plaintiff's cow. One would have expected that the plaintiff would have known the existence of the gaps in the hedge, though there is no definite finding by the learned Subordinate Judge on that point. One morning, it was found that the plaintiff's ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasavattula Sarabhamma Vs. Vasavattula Peda Veeranna and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ159
Raghava Rao, J.1. In this case I was at first inclined to think that the lower Court's order required a reversal ; but on a careful comparison and contrast instituted by me between the allegations and reliefs of the plaint as originally filed in the District Munsiff Court of Peddapuram and the allegations and reliefs of the plaint as presented to the Sub-Court at Cocanada on return by the former Court, I am, satisfied that there are substantial and material points of difference between the two plaints which preclude the application to the present case of the ruling of the Full Bench reported in Visweswara Sarma v. Nair I.L.R. (1911) 21 M.L. 35 Mad. 567 (F.B.) on which strong reliance was placed by Mr. V. Suryanarayana the learned advocate for the petitioner.2. The question which arose for decision in the Full Bench case was whether, where a Court after receiving a plaint and cancelling the stamp affixed thereto returns the plaint for presentation to the proper Court under Order 7, Rule...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M. Ganesan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad71
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of offences under Section 338, Penal Code, and Section 116, Motor Vehicles Act, and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 338, Penal Code, and one month rigorous imprisonment under Section 116, Motor Vehicles Act, the sentences to run concurrently.2. The case relates to an accident which happened at about 11 A.M. on 22nd October 1947 and the facts are these. On the day of occurrence, a tram car proceeding towards Mylapore stopped at the tram stop opposite the Willington cinema. A bus, M. S. C. No. 8751, was also going towards Mylapore. The petitioner was the driver of that bus. A head constable who was traveling in the tram was trying to get down through the front left passage of the tram. As he was attempting to alight keeping his legs on the foot board, the rear right side body of the accused's bus dashed against the foot board of the tram ...
Tag this Judgment!Perla Sattayya Chetti Vs. Gandhi Venkataramanayya
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ258
Govinda Menon, J.1. This raises a question .of some importance regarding the practice and procedure observed in the lower Courts, though instances like the one in question are not of common occurrence.2. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 146 of 1943, on the file of the District Munsiff, Vizagapatam, is the appellant in the second appeal. He filed the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, in the first instance in the Court of the Subordinate Judge,. Vizagapatam, for the recovery from the defendant of 55 cents of land on the ground that the same was encroached upon by the defendant. The plaint was presented in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on 3rd February, 1942, by two petitioners, Messrs. C.V. Somayajulu and P. Gangadharam, with a properly executed and attested vakalat in their favour. The suit was numbered as O.S. No. 10 of 1942, in the usual course and summons was ordered to the defendant. The defendant who appeared contested that the suit has been overvalued for the purpose of p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6701
- 6702
- 6703
- 6704
- 6705
- 6707
- 6708
- 6709
- 6710
- 6711
- Next ›
- Last »