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
William Yachuk and Another Vs. the Oliver Blais Co., Ltd.
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1949PC250
Lord du Parcq: William Yachuk, an infant who sued by his father as next friend, and Tony Yachuk (the father suing in his own right) were plaintiffs, and the Oliver Blais Company Limited was defendant, in an action begun in January, 1943, in the Supreme Court of Ontario. Two other defendants who were also sued are no longer concerned in the proceedings, and no further reference need be made to them. The plaintiffs' claim was for damages for negligence and breach of statutory duty. Of the alleged breach of statutory duty all that need now be said is that no argument was addressed to their Lordships in support of that head of the claim. The negligence alleged consisted in supplying the infant plaintiff, then a child of nine years of age, with a small quantity of gasoline with the result that he suffered injury, and his father was put to expense. The first hearing of the action was abortive, as a new trial was ordered on appeal. The case was ultimately tried by Urquhart J. who, for reasons...
Tag this Judgment!George Edmund De Silva Vs. Attorney-general of Ceylon and Others
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1949PC261
Lord Simonds: Their Lordships have humbly advised His Majesty that in their opinion this petition for special leave to appeal should be refused with costs. These are their reasons. [2] The petitioner George Edmund de Silva prays for special leave to appeal from a determination of Windham J., a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon acting as Election Judge under the provisions of the Order in Council hereafter mentioned, whereby the election of the petitioner as member of the House of Representatives for the Kandy Electoral District was declared to be void for certain reasons into which it is unnecessary to enter. When their Lordships had partially considered the case on its merits, it appeared that a question of jurisdiction arose upon which they desired the assistance of counsel for the Attorney-General of Ceylon. Having now heard full argument upon the question they are satisfied that the matter in dispute is one in which the prerogative right to entertain an appeal does...
Tag this Judgment!NuruddIn AbdulhuseIn Vs. Abu Ahmed Abdul Jalli
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom127; (1949)51BOMLR1020
ORDERTendolkar, J.1. This is a notice of motion for stay of the suit on the ground that there is a valid agreement for reference to arbitration. It is resisted on the plea that the defendant has taken a step in the proceedings in that he has filed an unconditional appearance in Court. The question for decision, therefore, is whether filing of an unconditional appearance is a step in the proceedings.2. Such a question has not arisen for determination either in England or in India for the simple reason that both under Section 4, English Arbitration Act, and under Section 19, Arbitration Act of 1899, a step in the proceedings taken 'at any time after appearance' disqualifies the defendant from applying for stay, with the result that, whether or not filing of an appearance was a step in the proceedings, it was manifestly inarguable that it prevented the defendant from applying for a stay of the suit. Section 34, Arbitration Act of 1940, which takes the place of Section 19 of the Act of 189...
Tag this Judgment!Santasingh Musafa Singh Vs. the Crown
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1950CriLJ474
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The appellant Santasingh, who was prosecuted Under Section 307, Penal Code, for having stabbed Prannath (P.W. 6) in the loin with his sword on the night of the 17th December 1947 at Jubbulpore, was tried by the Sessions Judge, Jubbulpore, with a jury; and after they had been charged by him, they returned a majority verdict of guilty against the appellant. After the verdict, the defence raised the contention that as the offence of attempted murder was punishable with death in the Jubbulpore district, in virtue of Section 16, Central Provinces and Berar Publio Safety Act, 1944, the trial should have been held with the aid of assessors. The Sessions Judge held, however, that the trial by jury was a valid trial and that it was not necessary foe him to disagree with the verdict of the jury and to submit the case to this Court. He accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment Under Section 807, Penal Code.2. The appellant, who is...
Tag this Judgment!Panchayti Akhara Vs. JitnaraIn and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All273
Agarwala, J.1. This is a deft's. appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration &, in the alternative for possession. 2. In 1913 the plff. respondent executed a sale deed in respect of plot No. 108 (which is the subject-matter of dispute before me) in favour of the deft-appellant. To this sale deed the provision of Section 3, Bundelkhand Alienation of Land Act II(2) of 1903 applied. According to that section the permission of the Collector of the district in which the land was situated had to be obtained in order to give effect to the sale deed. 3. The present suit was filed in 1944. The plff. alleged that, as no permission under Section 3, of the aforesaid Act had been taken for the alienation, the alienation could, at the best, be treated as usufructuary mortgage for a period of over 20 years under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act & that as those 20 years have expired within 12 years of the suit, he was entitled to get back possession. 4. The defence to the suit was that, alth...
Tag this Judgment!Maiku Vs. Ram Lal
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All430
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal by Maikuagainst the decree of the Civil Judge os Shahjahanpurby which he upheld the decree of the Munsif of Shahjanpur in a suit brought by the plaintiff respondent. 2. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent was foran injunction restraining the defendant-appelantfrom constructin a mosque within a hundred yards of the plaintiff-respondent's temple. Theparties reside in Mohalla Azizganj within theMunicipal limits of Shahjahanpur. In that Mohalla,there is an old temple os Shivji of whichthe plaintiff-respondent is the manager. The appellant had been trying to construct a mosque ata distance of about forty-four yards from thetemple. In that connection, the appelant hadonce before applied to the Municipal Board ofShahjahanpur in 1938. At that time, however, hisapplication was rejected on the opposition of theHindus of the locality. In 1943, the appellantagain applied to the Municipal Board for permissionto build a mosque and was granted the necessarypermission...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Court-fee Reference
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All639
Wanchoo, J.1. This is a reference by the Collector of Allahabad under Section 19H(4), Court-fees Act with respect to the estate of the late Mr. J. M. David of Allahabad. The question that has to be decided is whether the valuation! arrived at by the Collector, of tha properties left by the late Mr. J. M David is correct or not. According to the petitioner's valuation, the court-fee payable on the application for probate in this Court is Rs. 7,674-4-0. But according to the valuation of the Collector, the amount of court-fee required is Rs. 8,846-7-0 only. The Collector's valuation was not accepted by the petitioner. Her objection was that the properties should be valued on the date on which the late Mr. J. M. David died & not on the date of the application. Section 19-I is as follows :'No order entitling the petitioner to the grant of Probate or Letters of Administration shall be made until the petnr. has filed in the Court.....a valuationaccording to the market rates current on the dat...
Tag this Judgment!Nalliboyina Ganga Bhavanamma and ors. Vs. Kethu Surayya and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad50
Mack, J.1. Petitioners are respondents 9, 13 and 15 to 19 in a petition filed by two brothers for permission to sue them in forma pauperis. They seek to revise an order passed by the District Munsif of Bezwada who allowed a review petition, I. A. No. 2522 of 1945, filed under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C. which resulted in the pauper petition after having been rejected on 23rd June 1945 and ultimately dismissed on 21st July 1945 for failing to pay the requisite court-fee, being registered as a suit on payment of the court fee ultimately on 12th February 1946.2. It is regrettable that neither learned advocate was instructed about the nature of the suit and in consequence they have no notion whatsoever as regards the contemplated plaint, the alignment of parties or the cause of action. On referring to the original plaint, I find that the plaintiffs are two brothers who recently attained majority. The suit they contemplate is one to set aside a sale-deed in favour of defendant 8 of the ye...
Tag this Judgment!V.M.R. Malaiperumal Pillai Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative So ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad63
Rajamannar, C.J.1. These are two applications for the issue of a writ of certiorari and a writ of prohibition respectively and relate to certain proceedings commenced by the Triplicane Metal Workers' Co-operative Production and Sales Society in the following circumstances. The petitioner in the two petitions was the President of the Society. On 27th June 1947, the Society represented by its President filed before the Deputy Registrar, of Co-operative Societies, Madras, a claim for Rs. 8963-5-7 alleged to be due and owing to the Society by the petitioner. This claim was apparently made under Section 61, Madras Co-operative Societies Act, Act VI [6] of 1932, Sub-section (1) of which says that if any dispute touching the business of a registered society arises inter alia between the society and its officers, past and present, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision.2. Now, what should have happened under the provisions of Section 51 (2) read with Rule 15 of the Rules ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed HosseIn Vs. Mt. Chembelli and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal262
ORDERSarkar, J.1. This is an application for amendment of the plaint. The suit is on a dishonoured cheque. The plaint did not state that any notice of dishonour has been given or that any circumstances existed which rendered it unnecessary to give such notice. The plaintiff now seeks to introduce these statements in the plaint by an amendment. The application is opposed by the defendants on the ground that by reason of the absence of these allegations the plaint as it stands now discloses no cause of action and hence it must be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (a), Civil P. C. and the Court has no power to allow the amendment. The defendants rely on the judgment of Gentle J. in Sailesh Nath v. J. Chaudhury, 50 C. W. N. 540 which directly supports their contention.2. The plaintiff's answer is two fold : First the plaint discloses a cause of action in spite of the omission to state anything with regard to the notice of dishonour and secondly that Order 7, Rule 11, does not take away the C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6703
- 6704
- 6705
- 6706
- 6707
- 6709
- 6710
- 6711
- 6712
- 6713
- Next ›
- Last »