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
Channu Lal and anr. Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All692; 1950CriLJ199
Agarwala, J.1. This is an application ia revision against an order of the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge of Mainpuri dismissing an appeal against an order of Mr. B. P. Sabi, Magistrate, first class, Mainpuri, who reconvicted the applicants Under Section 422, Penal Code and] sentenced them both to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and also to pay a fine of us. 500 or in default to undergo further; rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.2. The facts giving rise to this application as found by both the Courts below may shortly be stated as follows. The applicants Channu Lal and Mannu Lal are the sons of one Fatoh Chand. They are related to Mewa Ram and Mt. Jain Kuar and Mt. Chandan Kuar whose names will be mentioned later on in the judgment a3 shown in the following pedigree : SHIAM LAL ________________|________________ | | | Jhuman Lal Darbari Lal Mewa Lal = | Mt. Chandan Kuar | _____________ |__________________ | | | Sewa Bam Hira Lal Fateh Chanel =Mt. Jain...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Sahodra Vs. Ram Baboo and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All10
Malik, C.J.1. The facts are set out in our Judgment, dated 5th May 1948, (A. I. R. (36) 1949 ALL. 49). We had remitted an issue to the lower Court for a finding. The issue was as follows:'Whether the property in dispute had been transferred to any person under the provisions of Sections 24, 25, 28 or 31 or bonds had been issued by the Collector to the creditors Under Sections 30 or 31, Encumbered Estates Act, before 24th February 1943, the date on which the application Under Section 11 was filed?'2. The finding of the learned Special Judge is that the property in dispute had not been transferred to any person under the provisions of the sections mentioned in the issue. The learned Special Judge also found that bonds had not been issued by the Collector to the creditors Under Sections 80 or 31, Encumbered Estates Act, before 24th February 1943, the date on which the objector filed his objection Under Section 11.3. The landlord, applicant has filed certain objections to these findings, M...
Tag this Judgment!Bishwanath Singh Vs. Jannath Pandey and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All643
ORDERSeth, J.1. This is a deft.'s application in revision against a decree of the Court of Small Causes at Jaunpur granted in favour of a legal practitioner in respect of his fees. There was no specific con-tract between the legal practitioner & his client. The taxable fee in the case was Rs. 516. The applicant had engaged three legal practitioners to appear & work for him. The plff. brought a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 153. He had already been paid Rs. 100 before the institution of the suit. The claim for Rs. 158 was based on the ground that the plff. was entitled to half the legal fee. The Court below has granted him a decree for Rs. 72 only.2. It being a case where the fee had not been privately settled between the legal practitioner & the client, the case must be governed by the second portion of Section 4, Legal Practitioners (Fees) Act (xxi [21] of 1926, which provides as follows : '...... if no such fee has been settled, a fee computedin accordance with the law for the time be...
Tag this Judgment!Narasingh Charan Mohapatra Vs. Radhakanta Mohapatra
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori132
Panigrahi, J.1. These two appeals arise out of proceedings in a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Cuttack, by one Radhakanta Mohapatra, son of the appellant, Choudhury Narasingh Charan Mohapatra, for a partition of the joint family properties belonging to himself and his father. The suit was registered as O. S. No. 9 of 1945 and was ultimately compromised on 18-1-1946 by a deed of compromise the parties agreeing to have the partition of their properties in equal shares through the mediation of Bhadraloks and undertaking to file allotment lists in Court within one month from the date of compromise. The allotment, however, did not materialise for some reason or other and the plaintiff thereupon filed a petition praying for the appointment of a commissioner. The learned Subordinate Judge, by his order dated 23-4-46, overruled the objection raised on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the comprosmise decree was in the nature of a final decree and directed the preparatio...
Tag this Judgment!Bansidhar Nanda and ors. Vs. Shyamsundar Nath Suthu
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori273
Panigrahi, J.1. The suits out of which these three appeals arise were instituted by the pltf. resp., who is the proprietor of Darpan Estate, a permanently settled estate in the Dist. of Cuttack, for recovery of mutation fees from the applts. who are transferees of ryoti holdings within the estate. The suits were instituted in the Ct. of the Rent Suit Officer in Rent suits Nos. 729 & 786 of 1941 & 1942 (out of which the S. A. Nos.. 108 & 138 of 1944 arise) & were tried with a batch of 68 suits. Rent Suit no. 415 of 1943 out of which the S. A. No. 142 of 1944 arises was tried along with a batch of 111 suits. All these suits were instituted by the proprietor resp. under Schedule 1-B, Orissa Tenancy Act, for the recovery of mutation fees.2. The pltf's case is that the applts in S. A. 108 & S. A, 138 of 1944, who constitute one family & who are common in both the appeals, obtained by registered sale deeds, dated 5-10-1904 & 15-9-1922 respectively, certain occupancy holdings from the recorde...
Tag this Judgment!Bameswar Bamdev Shiva and anr. Vs. Anath Nath Mukherjee and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal490
Das Gupta, J.1. In this suit only one question has been left for my decision. With regard to the rest, an order has been made by consent of the parties.2. The facts of the case are as follows : One Sriman Chandra Mukherjee died in the year 1878-leaving a will whereby he created a debutter & appointed his wife, Bama Sundari, executrix & directed that the pltf. deities should be installed by her. Pursuant to this direction, the pltf. deities were installed by Bama Sundari. Thereafter, in the year 1933, a suit was filed being Suit No. 2385 of 1933 in which, on 30-8-1934, a decree was passed declaring certain persons to be shebaits. The persona who were declared shebaits were (1) Bimal Chandra Mukherjee, (2) Charu Chandra Mukherjee, (3) Dino Nath Mukherjee, (4) Anadi Mohon Mukherjee, (5) Jnanendra Nath Mukherjee, (6) Govinda Chandra Mukherjee, (7) Atul Chandra Mukherjee, (8) Dulal Chandra Mukherjee & (9) Kali Krishna Mukherjee. They are the descendants of one Harish Chandra Mukherjee, brot...
Tag this Judgment!Basudeva Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All513; 1949CriLJ798
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an application by Shri Basudeva under Section 491, Criminal P. O. The applicant is the proprietor of firm styled 'Mahanand Ram Bajoria and Brothers' in Shahjahanpur which deals in kerosene oil. On 19th. December, 1948, the applicant was arrested and Ordered to be detained under the U. P. Prevention of Black-marketing (Temporary Powers) Act, XXII [93] of 1048. By the present application, the applicant contends that his-arrest and detention, under this Act, are illegal' and one of the grounds which has been urged is that the provisions of the Act which provide for-detention are ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature.2. The impugned Act received the assent of-the Governor General on 11th April, 1948 under Section 76, Government of India Act, 1935, as adapted, and was promulgated on 14th April, 1948. The' Preamble of the Act is as follows:Whereas it is expedient in the interest of maintenance of Public Order and supplies essential to the life-of the community to pr...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Raghubir Saran
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1949CriLJ852
Wali Ullah, Ag. C.J.1. I agree that this application should be dismissed. The full facts of the case are set out in the Orders of my learned brothers, Sapru and Bhargava J J , and I gene, rally agree with the reasons given by them.2. The applicant was removed from practice by an Order of the Special Bench of three Judges in miscellaneous Case No. 243 of 1946 dated 20th December 1946. On 29th July 1947, the present application for re-instatement and permission to practise was made by the applicant. It purports to be an application under Section 12(6), Bar Councils Act.2a. We have heard Mr. S. N. Verma, the learned Counsel for the applicant, at length. We have also heard Mr. Kunzru on behalf of the Bar Council and Dr. Faruqi, Government Advocate, on behalf of the Advocate-General, who have both opposed the application. Some argument has been addressed to us on the question whether the High Court acting under Section 12(6), Bar Councils Act can admit fresh evidence and, on the strength of...
Tag this Judgment!NizamuddIn and ors. Vs. Mangal Sen and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All699
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal in a suit for partition of a 49/72 sihams share in a house. The following pedigree will elucidate the facts:Khairat Ali = Hafiz-un-Nigsa = name unknown| |-------------------- Nizamuddin,| | Defendant 1.Hashmi Begum Himayat Ali, = Wajid Ali, Defendant 5. Defendant 4|----------------| |Mt. Jhagro, Mt. Hashmat-un-Defendant 2, Nisa,Defendant 3.2. Khairat Ali in the above pedigree died in 1920, after which his widow Hafiz-un-Nisa brought a Suit No. 278 of 1921 of the Court of Munsif, Muzaffarnagar, for recovery of her dower debt against her own son and daughter, Himayat Ali and Hashmi Begum. On 9th August 1921, a compromise was effected in the suit that Hafiz-un-Nisa and Hashmi Begum would be deemed to be the absolute owners of the entire house in dispute, while the entire zamindari property left by Khairat Ali would be deemed to be owned by Himayat Ali only. It was further provided that within a month of the date of the compromise the two la...
Tag this Judgment!Gangeshwara Nand Giri Vs. Som Giri and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All718
Sapru, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal may be stated shortly. The original owner of the property in dispute, which will be found detailed at the foot of the plaint, was one Swami Sankaranand Giri of Shankar Ashram Bhemgodah, Hardwar. Shortly before his death in 1925 he made a testamentary disposition, on 13th March 1924, of his property. On his death, his chela, Parnavanand Giri, entered into possession, under that will, of the property as owner. The latter died on 10th March 1932 without leaving any chela. The plain-tiff's case is that he is the gurubhai of Parnavanand Giri and it is on the basis of that allegation that he has laid claim to the property and assets left by the latter. The plaintiff's case further is that the defendants are in unlawful possession of the property, that defendant 2 has been giving out that he is a trustee of the property in dispute in accordance with the will of Swami Sankaranand Giri, that he has a right, according to the terms laid d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6712
- 6713
- 6714
- 6715
- 6716
- 6718
- 6719
- 6720
- 6721
- 6722
- Next ›
- Last »