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
The Corporation of Calcutta Vs. the Governors of St. Thomas School
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR25
Harilal Kania, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in West Bengal. The material facts are these.2. Premises No. 4, Diamond Harbour Road, which is within the municipal limits of Calcutta, comprise 69 bighas, 10 cottas, 8 chittacks and 18 square feet of land with buildings thereon. The respondents who are the Governors of St. Thomas' School are the owners of the land and of the buildings which were constructed thereon before April 1942. Those premises have been assessed to consolidated rates under Section 127(6) of the Calcutta Municipal Act. An assessment at the general six yearly re-valuation was made in 1938-39. Unless re-valued in the interval that would remain in operation till December 31, 1944.3. In April, 1942, the said premises were requisitioned, under Rule 70 (Rule 75-A of the Amended Rules) of the Rules made under the Dafence of India Act, for the purposes of the Government of the Federation, and possesion was taken by...
Tag this Judgment!Gopinath Jiew and ors. Vs. the Comr. of Hindu Religious Endowments and ...
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori339
Ray, C.J.1. It arises out of an order of the Munsif of Cuttack refusing to grant a temporary injunction to the pltfs.-petnra. by way of restrain, the deft. 1 (C. P. 1), Hindu Religious Endowments Comr. from levying contribution from the pltf. under the provisions of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act.2. The Commr. in exercise of the powers under the Act declared the endowment a public one, & accordingly, is going to levy the usual contribution which, in this case, amounts to Rs. 80 annually, the aggregate of the claim, at the time the petn, was filed, amounting to Rs. 240. The prayer for in. junction has been rejected on two grounds, namely, (i) that the suit having been stayed under Schedule , (Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Amendment Act (Orissa Act (xxxi [31] of 1947), the Ct has no power to issue injunction; & (ii) that according to the balance of convenience, the petn. has no3. We have to consider two very important questions of law(i) Whether the suit is one within the ...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Seshadri Aiyangar Vs. Narayana Nair
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad106
Balakrishna Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing an execution petition, E. P. No. 1109 of 1946 on the file of his Court.2. The relevant facts are these : The property which forms the subject-matter of this controversy is a non-residential building in Besant Road, Triplicane. On 29th May 1946 the landlord obtained from the House Rent Controller appointed under the Madras House Rent Control Order of 1945, an order for the eviction of the tenant who was then in occupation of the premises. The tenant preferred an appeal to the Collector of Madras, which was dismissed on 15th July 1946. On 2nd August 1946 the landlord applied to the City Civil Court for execution of the order of eviction that had been made in his favour. On the very same day, namely, 2nd August 1946, the tenant presented a revision petition to the Government which he was entitled to do under the Madras House Rent Control Order. This order ceased to be in f...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sheikh Khader Sahib and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad108
Somasundaram, J.1. Accused 3 and 1 are the petitioners respectively in the above cases. They were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months by the stationary Sub-Magistrate, Cuddappah, for an offence under Section 411, Penal Code. In appeal, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cuddappah, confirmed the convictions and sentences.2. On 27th November 1946 between 7 and 8 P. M., there was a theft of gold and diamond jewels, cash and other properties of the value of about Rs. 10,000 in the house of one Rao Sahib K. Venkatesam Chetti in Cuddappah town. The Circle Inspector of Police on receipt of information, investigated the case. In the course of the investigation, he recovered M. OS. 1 to 4 from the tank bund on 28th November 1946. The next day he had the tank searched as a result of which he recovered M. OS. 5 to 38. He suspected accused 1 who was traced and arrested on 18th December 1946 and he made a statement in consequence of which M. OS. 39 to 62, 72 to 82, 85 and 86...
Tag this Judgment!Venktrapragada Viraraghava Rao and anr. Vs. Sri Rao Bahadur Mothey Nar ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad124
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiffs, who were the owners or lessees of a picture house, sued to evict from it the defendants, who were partners of defendant 3 in the conducting of the cinema business in the picture house. The defendants resisted the suit mainly on the ground that they were entitled under Act XV [15] of 1946 (The Madras Buildings Lease and Bent Control Act) to remain in possession since they satisfied the definition of 'tenants' found in Section 2 (4) of that Act. They had no lease deed in their favour; but they sought to support their claim by contending that by virtue of the partnership, they had entered into with the lessee (plaintiff 3) with the express consent of plaintiff 1, there was either an equitable assignment of the lease (EX. A-6) by plaintiff 3 in favour of the partnership of themselves and plaintiff 3 or that this lease in favour of plaintiff 3 must be regardedas a lease to the partnership. These and other points were considered by the learned District Judge and...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sheik Khader Sahib and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ451
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. Accused 3 and 1 are the petitioners respectively in the above cases-They were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Cuddapah, for an offence under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. In appeal, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cuddapah, confirmed the convictions and sentences.2. On 27th November, 1946, between 7 and 8 p.m. there was a theft of gold and diamond jewels, cash and other properties of the value of about Rs. 10,000 in the house of one Rao Sahib K. Venkatesan Chetti in Cuddapah Town. The Cirole Inspector of Police on receipt of information, investigated the case. In the course of the investigation, he recovered M.Os. 1 to 4 from the tank bund on the 28th November, 1946. The next day he had the tank searched as a result of which he recovered M.Os. 5 to 38. He suspected the 1st accused who was traced and arrested, on 18th December, 1946, and he made a statement in consequence of which M.Os.. 39 to 62,...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K. Rajagopala Rao and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ612
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. These eleven applications raise common questions for consideration and also are based on facts which are common.2. On the 30th of January, 10,48, there was a rally of the members of the Rashtria Swayam Sevak Sangh at Vijayawada on which day Mahatma Gandhi died. On the next day, the 31st January, according to the grounds served on the detenus in these petitions, the petitioners and others conspired to attack the members of the Rashtria Swayam Sevak Sangh and in the various incidents that occurred that day, some members of that body were injured and a worker of the municipality was also killed. Some of the petitioners were arrested on the same day while others were arrested by the police on subsequent dates. A case was registered against 71 accused including the petitioners under various sections of the Indian Penal Code which was later numbered as P.R.C. No. 1 of 1048 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Vijayawada. The petitioners and the other accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Bysani Krishnaiya Chetty Vs. Dr. Varadachari
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad52
ORDERMack, J.1. These are applications by the appellant in C. C. C. A. No. 28 of 1947 who was the defendant in a suit in the City Civil Court to set aside the abatement of his appeal consequent to the death of the plaintiff on 8th May 1948 and to bring on record his legal representatives. These petitions were filed on 29th September 1948, one month and 22 days beyond the prescribed period of 90 days under Article 177, Limitation Act. The reason given for the delay is the appellant's ignorance of the plaintiff's death.2. An important point to be considered in condoning this delay under Section 5, Limitation Act is that the plaintiff filed a memorandum of objections in which he appeared by the learned advocate who now strenuously contests these petitions on behalf of his legal representatives. No report was made to the Court about the death of the plaintiff in connection with the cross-objections filed on which the Court was quite entitled to presume that the appellant was alive so long ...
Tag this Judgment!Bysani Krishniya Chetty Vs. Dr. Varadachari
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ246
ORDERMack, J.1. These are applications by the appellant in C.C.C.A. No. 28 of 1947 who was the defendant in a suit in the City Civil Court to set aside the abatement of his appeal consequent to the death of the plaintiff on 8thMay, 1948 and to bring on record his legal representatives. These petitions were filed on. 29th- September, 1948, one month and 22 days beyond the prescribed period of 90 days under Article 177 of the Limitation Act. The reason given for the delay is the appellant's ignorance of the plaintiff's death.2. An important point to be considered in condoning this delay under Section 5, of the Limitation Act is that the plaintiff filed a memorandum of objections in which he appeared by the learned advocate who now strenuously contests these petitions on behalf of his legal representatives,- No report was made to the Court about the death of the plaintiff in connection with the cross-objections filed on which the Court was quite entitled to presume that the appellant was ...
Tag this Judgment!CaptaIn S. Sunkavally Vs. Singaraju Malaparaju
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad60
Mack, J.1. The appellant is the defendant, a medical practitioner, who from 1st April 1942 rented a house in Bezwada from the plaintiff, respondent at a rent of Rs. 50. There was at the time evacuation from Madras, where the defendant was in practice and also to a lesser extent from Bezwada owing to a war scare from Japanese military potentialities which led to a decrease in rents in both places. The appellant, in this house he rented in Bezwada, started a medical practice and a nursing home which he is said to be still carrying on. On 31st July 1948 his landlord filed Original Suit No. 580 of 1943 after notice to quit or pay enhanced rent of Rs. 140 a month, for ejectment and recovery of rent at this rate from 1st April 1942. The District Munsif of Bezwada dismissed the suit so far as it related to ejectment in view of Section 7(A) (1) and (2), House Rent Control Order, 1941, as amended in 1944 holding that it deprived him of jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction. He however gave...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6706
- 6707
- 6708
- 6709
- 6710
- 6712
- 6713
- 6714
- 6715
- 6716
- Next ›
- Last »