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
Sm. Maya Debi and ors. Vs. Sm. Rajlakshmi Debi and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal1
G.N. Das, J.1. These three appeals arise out of proceedings in execution of decrees for rent. In First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 83 of 1945, the appellant is Sm. Maya Debi. First Miscelloneous Appeal No. 22 of 1948 and First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 145 of 1947 arise out of the same execution proceedings. In F. m. A, 22 of 1948, the appellants are Probodh Kumar Roy and Pabitra Kumar Roy. In F. m. A. 145 of 1947, the appellants are Kshitish Chandra Roy and Shib Chandra Roy. The facts common to all these appeals may be stated now.2. The Maharaja of Cossimbazar was the proprietor of a zemindary under which a putni was held by one Sarat Moni Debi whose interest is now represented by Maya Debi. Under the putni there were several dar-putnies. We are concerned with three of such dar-putnies in these appeals. One of the dar-putnies was held by the Midnapore Zemindary Company. A second Dar-putni was held by Satish Chandra Roy, since deceased, Kshitish Chandra Roy and Stub Chandra Roy and Suryyap...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Prosad Agarwalla Vs. H.W. Jones
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal349
ORDERBanerjee, J.1. This is an application for setting aside an ex parte order made on 22-3-1949, appointing Receiver of a certain Provident Fund money. The matter was mentioned to me on 24-3-1949, & I directed that the order should not be drawn up for a week. In the meantime this application was made.2. The petitioner is the widow of one Jones who in his life time was a senior engine driver in the East Indian Railway. On 29-8-1947, the plff. obtained a decree against the petitioner's husband. The D. H. made an application for execution of the decree on which the order was made as aforesaid on 22-3-1949. The question is whether a Receiver can be appointed of a Provident Fund amount which stood to the credit of the deceased J. D. at the time of his death.3. The solution depends upon the construction to be given to Section 3(2), Provident Funds Act, 1925, & the determination of the effect thereof.4. It is Unnecessary to discuss the matter in detail inasmuch as, Rankin J., in an illuminat...
Tag this Judgment!Kalipada Das Vs. the King
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1950CriLJ125
J. P. Mitter, J1. This is a petition for revision of an order of Mr. U. N. Ghatak, Magistrate First Class, Ulubaria, dated 25th October 1948, whereby he made absolute an order Under Section 133, Criminal P.C. requiring the petitioner to remove the shed which he had constructed on a piece of khas mahal land.2. The petitioner's case is that until about five years ago he had a shop near the Lock-gate at Ulubaria. As the Military authorities wanted to construct a bridge across the Ulubaria Canal, the petitioner's shop was removed to the present site, where he was permitted by Government Officers to construct a shed or a stall. For several years he hag since been carrying on business there without causing inconvenience to the public and he claims to have acquired some sort of tenancy right under the Irrigation Department.3. On 31st March 1948, the Executive Engineer of Cossy Division wrote to the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Ulubaria to say that the petitioner had trespassed on Government k...
Tag this Judgment!Sangram Singh and ors. Vs. Zahar Singh and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All662
Agarwala, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit filed in the Revenue Court for ejectment of defendants 1 and 2, under Section 180, U.P. Tenancy Act. The plaintiff alleged that by an agreement between the co-sharers he alone was entitled to eject and settle tenants on plot No. 4559 (old)-4317 (present), that formerly Mt. Sunder Kunwar was the tenant and Kallu was her sub-tenant of the plot, that after Sunder Kunwar's death the plaintiff obtained a decree for ejectment against Kallu, who was ejected. Thereafter, the plaintiff let out the land to one Balwant Singh, but before he could take possession, defendants 1 and 2, who are co-sharers, took possessions without the consent of the plaintiff. He accordingly sued for their ejectment and for damages.2. The defence of defendants 1 and 2 was that they were not trespassers, but that they were co- sharers, and that they could not be ejected.3. An issue about the proprietary title of the defendants was referred to the Civil C...
Tag this Judgment!Salamat Ullah Vs. Mt. Maharaj Kuar
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All770
1. This is an execution of decree appeal. It is directed against the appellate order of the learned District Judge Bara Banki upholding the order of the execution Court and allowing the judgment-debtor Mt. Mahraj Kuar's objections under Section 47, Civil P.C., against the execution of the decree of Shaikh Salamat Ullah appellant.2. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the decree of which the appellant sought execution was or was not a nullity by reason of the fact that it was obtained against the judgment-debtors during the pendency of the Encumbered Estates Act proceedings initiated by some of them. It is admitted on behalf of the appellant that the suit, which resulted in the decree under execution, was filed subsequent to the initiation of proceedings under the En-cumbered Estates Act by three judgment-debtors, namely, Chaudhri Maqbulul Rahman, Chaudhri Musbtaqul Rahman and Beni Madho Singh, The decree-holder further admitted that in the proceedings consequent upon t...
Tag this Judgment!Mehnga Singh Kishan Chand Vs. the Crown
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1950CriLJ174
Harnam Singh J.1. Mehnga Singh, aged forty years, has been convicted Under Section 302, Penal Code, for the murder of Dipo and Under Section 307, Penal Code, for the attempted murder of Parsinni. He has been sentenced to death tinder Section 302, Penal Code, and to four years' rigorous imprisonment Under Section 307, Penal Code, with the direction that the convict shall undergo the sentence of imprisonment only if the sentence of death is not confirmed by the High Court. Mehnga 8ingh appeals and the proceedings are before up under chap. 27, Criminal P.C., for the confirmation of the sentence of death.2. The facts so far as material are that on 1st June 1948 at about noon time Mehnga Singh convict is stated to have murdered Dipo, aged eight years, and injured Parsinni, Now, Parsinni, P.W. 2, is the wedded wife of Mehnga Singb and Dipo was the daughter of Parsinni from her former husband Hazara Singh.3. The motive for the crime according to the statement of Parsinni, P.W. 2, was that on ...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Chakrawarty Vs. the King
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1950CriLJ115
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal by one Matilal Chakravarti who was convicted by a learned Additional Presidency Magistrate of an offence Under Section 420, Penal Gode and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. In default of payment of the fine he was ordered to undergo a further period of six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The complainant in the case carried on business in the firm name of the Indo Trading Company with offices at No. 11, Netaji Subhaa Road. According to the complainant the appellant Matilal Ghakravarty accompanied by one Amarriath Bhattaeharyya, who was known to the complainant, came to him and offered to sell him 100 shares of the Indian Steamship Company. The case was that it was represented to the complainant that the shares had belonged to the appellant and that Amarnath Bhattaoharyya bad obtained them from him and was desirous of disposing of them. The complainant agreed to buy these shares and paid the price of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ashutosh Roy and anr. Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1950CriLJ123
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order passed by a Municipal Magistrate convicting the petitioners under Schedule XVIII Rule 4, Sub-rule (1), Calcutta Municipal Act, and sentencing them each to pay a fine of RSection 100 and in default of payment of the fine each to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.2. The petitioners were the owners of certain property known as 85 Kali Kumar Banerjee Lane. These premises were let to the Calcutta Corporation at which a school was carried on under the direction of the Corporation. It was alleged by the Corporation that the premises were in a deplorable state of disrepair and eventually the Corporation served a notice on the petitioners under Rule 4,Sub-rule (1) of Schedule XVIII, Calcutta Municipal Act calling upon them to secure and repair the premises. In this notice details of the necessary repairs were stated.3. The Corporation said that they were prepared to give vacant possession of the premises to enable the repairs ...
Tag this Judgment!Shukrullah and ors. Vs. Sir Vijaya Ananda Gajpati Raj Maharaj Kumar Vi ...
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All739
Harish Chandra, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned civil Judge of Banaras decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for a one-fourth share of the sale price of a house situated in the city of Banaras in Ahaia Bohila in Mahal Sheo Narain Puri of village Bhadaini on the basis of custom. The trial Court had dismissed the suit. But the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit.2. The existence of a custom by which zar-e-chaharum is paid to the zamindar whenever any house property is sold in this mahal by a parjawatdar was admitted on behalf of the appellants. The only question that arose was whether the respondent was or was not a zamindar. The respondent is recorded in the khewat as the proprietor of haqiyat-i-mutafarriqa. It is said that he is, therefore, merely a plot-proprietor and is not entitled to the benefit of this custom. But the proprietor of a spec...
Tag this Judgment!Giani Kartar Singh and ors. Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ1069
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. This is an application by Giani Ear-tar Singh and sis others Under Section 491, Criminal P.C. Except Giani Kartar Singh all others are reported to have been released and are at present not under detention. Their habeas corpus application, as such, has now become infructuous, and is struck off.2. Two main points have been raised on behalf of Giani Kartar Singh before the Court- firstly, that the Punjab Act, II [2] of 1947, has now ceased to have effect and secondly, that the order of detention has been passed on no sufficient grounds.3. Punjab Act, II [20] of 1947, in my opinion, N has not as yet ceased to have effect. Section 93, Government of India Act, 1935, no doubt, now stands omitted by the India (Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947. Section 18 (3), Indian Independence Act, 1947, however, lays down that;Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the law of British India and of the several parts thereof existing immediately before the appointed day...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6709
- 6710
- 6711
- 6712
- 6713
- 6715
- 6716
- 6717
- 6718
- 6719
- Next ›
- Last »