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
C.M. Mathu Kutty Vs. Varee Kutty
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad64
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 15 of 1946, Subordinate Judge's Court, Ottapalam, against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge staying the trial of the suit under Section 34, Arbitration Act, X [10] of 1940.2. The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers and are the sons of one Cheeran Mathu who died in February 1944. After the father's death, there were disputes between the brothers regarding the property left by the father and the suit for partition was instituted for division of the properties. The defendant filed an application under Section 34, Arbitration Act for stay of trial of the suit on the ground that there was an agreement between the parties to refer the disputes to five named arbitrators and that in pursuance of the agreement there was a reference to arbitrators. It was also alleged in the petition filed by the defendant that the parties filed detailed statements regarding the disputes before the arbitrators. The agreement to...
Tag this Judgment!Molugu Lakshminarasimhacharyulu and ors. Vs. Marisetti Ratnam and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ235
ORDER1. Of the above applications C.M.Ps. Nos. 3752 to 3756 are applications for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the common judgment and respective decrees in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 55 to 59 of 1946. They must be now treated as applications for leave to appeal to the Federal Court. C.M.P. No. 3751 of 1947 is an application for the consolidation of the several appeals for purposes of pecuniary valuation, furnishing of security and deposit of printing charges and hearing. It is represented that the matter involved in C.M.P. No. 3756 has been settled.2. These petitions have been posted before a Full Bench for a decision on the main question arising from C.M.P. No. 3751 of 1947, namely, whether the several appeals could be consolidated for the purposes of pecuniary valuation. There is a further question if leave is eventually granted, whether the appeals could be consolidated even for purposes of security and deposit of printing and other charges provided in Order 45...
Tag this Judgment!The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. S. Venkatarama Iyer
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ245
Raghava Rao, J.A claimant who had failed to mention the amount of his claim in the memorandum filed by him before the Collector in pursuance of the notice issued to him under Section 9 of the Indian Land Acquisition Act sought to make good the omission by presenting an application to the Judge under Section 25(3) praying that for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed therewith the Court may be pleased to allow that there was sufficient reason for the omission. The learned Subordinate Judge ordered the petition, and I am not prepared in revision to interfere. In ordering the petition, the learned Subordinate Judge however observed that it was the duty of the Revenue Divisional Officer, where a claimant failed to specify the amount of compensation, to draw his attention to the omission and require him to supply it. To this observation the learned Government pleader takes exception on the ground that there is no provision anywhere in the Act casting any such obligation on the officer....
Tag this Judgment!Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. S. Venkatarama Iyer
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad97
ORDERRaghava Rao, J.1. A claimant who had failed to mention the amount of his claim in the memo filed by him before the Collector in pursuance of the notice issued to him under Section 9, Land Acquisition Act sought to make good the omission by presenting an application to the Judge under Section 25(3) praying that for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed therewith the Court may be pleased to allow that there was sufficient reason for the omission. The learned Subordinate Judge ordered the petition, and I am not prepared in revision to interfere. In ordering the petition, the learned Subordinate Judge, however, observed that it was the duty of the Revenue Divisional Officer, where a claimant failed to specify the amount of compensation, to draw his attention to the omission and require him to supply it. To this observation the learned Government Pleader takes exception on the ground that there is no provision anywhere in the Act casting any such obligation on the officer. The lear...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaj Bux and ors. Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All433
ORDERDesai, J. 1. The applicants were prosecuted alongwith Abu Turab under Sections 147 325 and 323, PenalCode. The trial Court, S. D. M. Sultanpur, convictedthe applicants and acquitted Abu Turab. Theyappealed against that decision to the SessionsJudge of Fyzabad who refused to interfere withtheir conviction of sentences, so they have comeup to this Court in revision. 2. The ground which forms the backbone ofthe revision is that the learned Sessions Judgehas not written a proper judgment in appeal.This ground is well founded and is sufficient toinvalidate the judgment. 3. The case for the prosecution in brief was asfollows: There are two step brothers Zargham AliKhan and Abu Turab who live in village Baharpur.There is no love lost between them ZaighamAli Khan let out some plots to Anand BahadurKhan who sublet them on 'betai'' to Behari. On18-3-1948, Anand Bahadur Khan and his fatherJang Bahadur Khan went to receive their sharein the produce from Behari. They were waylaidby the 16 appl...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Kishore Das Vs. Banamali Sahu Dibakar Sahu Firm
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori312
Ray, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack refusing to set aside an ex parte decree. The suit was a Money Suit by the resp. against more than four defta. of whom deft. 2 is the applt. before us. Deft, l is the elder brother & is stated to be the Manager of the joint family of defta. l, 2 & 3. Deft, is a Muhammadan gentle, man who was impleaded on the ground that he was one of the patnrs. of the partnership business in relation whereto the liability in favour of the pltf. is said to have arisen. Defta 5 & 6 were some of the servants of the partnership concern. . The suit was contested by deft. & he was released from the liability on the finding that he was not a patrar. of the concern. Deft, l, while residing at Puri. the place where he ordinarily resides now -a days away from the family house at Cuttack, was personally served with summons which he acknowledged. Deft. 8 is the son of deft, 1. The two defts. (deffcs. 2 & 3) could not be perso...
Tag this Judgment!Balkrishna Nanda and anr. Vs. Ramchandra Bhuyan and anr.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori175
Panigrahi, J. 1. The appellant in Second Appeal No. 209 of 1945, namely Balakrishna Nanda is the auction-purchaser of a ryoti holding No. 405 and he filed, two suits in the Court of the Munsiff, Title Suits Nos. 154 and 155 01 1941, for ejecting the defendants who were recorded as Sikimi tenants in respect of this holding and whose under-ryoti holdings were registered as Nos. 55 and 56. The learned Munsif who tried the suit gave a decree to the plaintiff for ejectment in respect of holding No. 55 and dismissed the plaintiff's suit in respect of holding No. 56. Both the parties preferred appeals to the Court of the Subordinate Judge who confirmed the decree of the District Munsiff, and both parties have come up in appeal to this Court. Second Appeal No. 209/1945 is the appeal filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff, Baiakrishna Nanda and Second Appeal No. 219/1945 is the appeal filed by the defendant against whom, a decree in ejectment had been passed.2. It is not necessary for the purpose ...
Tag this Judgment!Rupendra Deb Raikut Vs. Ashrumati Debi and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal286
Baneerjee, J.1. This is an application under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent for transfer of a suit pending in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Jalpaiguri to this Court to be tried and determined in its Extraordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction.2. The suit has been filed to recover a large estate, called Baikunthpur, situated in the district of Jalpaiguri being one of the largest estates in that district and concerns a family which is of importance not only in that district but also in the province of Bengal.3. This family, originally Koch, apostatised to Hinduism, and although affected to be Hindus it has retained and is governed by family customs which as regards some matters are at variance with Hindu law. It appears that the law of primogeniture governs succession to the estate; females are excluded from inheritance. The successive holders of the estate are called Raikuts. Mokrund Deb Raikut v. Bissessuree, 9 S. D. A. R. 159 and Fanindra Deb v. Rajeswar Dass, 12 I. A. 72 : (11 Cal....
Tag this Judgment!Nani Gopal Dutta and ors. Vs. Kshitish Chandra Banerjee and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal108
G.N. Das, J.1. These appeals are on behalf of the plffs. appellants. Second Appeal No. 1571 of 1943 arises out of Title Suit No. 103 of 1941. In this appeal the plffs. pray for a declaration of their right of pasturage over the banks of a tank known as Chapra tank & for a further declaration of a right of burial on the southern part of the northern bank of the said tank. They also pray for a permanent injunction restraining the defts. from interfering with the exercise of their right of pasturage & right of burial as aforesaid. The suit was framed under Order 1, R. 8, Civ. P. C. on behalf of the villagers of a village known as Debgram. The right was based on immemorial user & was claimed under three heads, viz., (i) easement of necessity, (ii) lost grant, & (iii) customary right.2. The other S. A. No. 1572 of 1943 arises out of Title Suit No. 105 of 1941. The plffs. are the same in this suit & the right is claimed over the banks of a tank called Boaria tank. The right that is claimed i...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Tripura Modern Bank Ltd.; Her Highness Maharani Regent Mohadebi ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal240,54CWN262
Chatterjee, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Sarkar J., dated 1st March 1949, whereby he dismissed an application presented by a number of creditors of the Tripura Modern Bank Ltd., under Section 153, Companies Act.2. This Bank had a subscribed capital of Rs. 22,50,000 and a paid up capital of Rs. 15,54,000. It was made a scheduled bank in the year 1945, but it got into difficulties thereafter. In the petition it was stated that by reason of various difficulties and the change in the political situation the business of the company was affected and it had to meet liabilities to the extent of over two crores of rupees. Owing to the suspension of business of a number of banks in Calcutta which were also scheduled banks, the company was unable to meet heavy demands and it was not possible for the bank to make further payments without realising its investments.3. The petition discloses that the situation is really serious. The liability of the Bank on the date of the presentation o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6707
- 6708
- 6709
- 6710
- 6711
- 6713
- 6714
- 6715
- 6716
- 6717
- Next ›
- Last »