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
Kunja Sahu and ors. Vs. Bhagaban Mohanty and ors.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori35
Ray, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal in a suit for declaration that the suit lands are their ancestral joint family properties and that defendant 1 has not acquired any title thereto by virtue of a sale-deed dated 27-2-1940, executed by defendant 2. The plaintiffs and the husband of defendant 2 were members of a-joint Hindu Mitakshara family at the time of the latter's death. On his death, defendant 2 succeeded to her husband's interest in the family properties under the Hindu Women's Eight to Property Act She transferred her this interest in favour of defendant 1 by the aforesaid sale-deed. The suit was resisted on the ground that defendant a had the right to alienate and the said alienation is binding on the plaintiffs. There was some dispute as between the parties as to whether the claimed properties were ancestral joint family properties. That controversy, however, has been set at rest and has not been re-agitated here. In this appeal, we shall proceed oh the assumption that Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Mohapatra Vs. T. Venkatakrishnayya and ors.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori6
Ray, C.J.1. This is defendant 8's appeal in a suit for enforcement of a mortgage dated 27th July 1926 for a consideration of Rs. 12,000 executed by defendants 1 and 2 and their father late Narain Gantayat. The aforesaid mortgage was executed in full discharge of a prior mortgage dated 16th December 1911 for a consideration of Rs. 8000. The latter consideration was made up of cash advances from time to time under promotes and the interests that accrued due thereon. It is undisputed that out of the consideration of Rs. 12,000, Rs. 6000 represented interest accruing due on the pronotes and the prior mortgage bond, the balance being the amounts advanced in cash. Defendants 1 and 2 are the primary mortgagors. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 are the sons of defendant 1. Defendants 6 and 7 are sons of defendant 2. Defendant 8, the present appellant is a, purchaser of Schedules B-1 and B-2 properties subject to the mortgage. Defendants 9 to 12 are also subsequent purchasers of certain minor items of mor...
Tag this Judgment!Abdoola Haroon and Co. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal36
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order under Section 421, Calcutta Municipal Act passed by the Municipal Magistrate directing the destruction of certain tinned jam, marmalade etc., belonging to the petitioners defendants and at their cost, on the finding that the seized stock was unfit for human consumption.2. Proceedings out of which the present rule arises were initiated on a complaint, under Section 421, Calcutta Municipal Act, hereafter referred to as the Act, filed by a Food Inspector of the Calcutta Corporation. The allegation was that the entire lot of jam, marmalade etc., packed in tins, which were stored at 30 Park Lane, Calcutta, had been found on examination to be unwholesome, unsound and unfit for human consumption. Some of the tins had been seized by the Corporation Officer while the remaining quantity of the stock was kept under seal. As required under said Section 421 the seized articles were produced before the Magistrate for inspection...
Tag this Judgment!Gobardhan Banerjee Vs. Sukhamoy and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal481
1. Bidhusekhar Banerjee had a wife of the name of Digambari Debi. Five sons were bora to them, viz., Gobardhan (deft, 1), Anath, Ajit, Asit & Anil. Digambari died some-time in 1912 but Bidhusekhar died about nine years thereafter. At the time of Digambari's death all the five sons were living but at the time of Bidhusekhar's death Anath was dead but the other four sons survived him. We are stating those facts because one of the points raised in this case is whether the properties in suit belonged to Bidhusekhar or to his wife Digambari. In the view that we are taking it is not necessary to decide this point. Anath died in the year 1917 leaving him surviving a widow, viz., Lilabati. It is admitted that Anath had two sons, Mohitkumar & Monmohan but it is a point in controversy in this case as to whether Mohitkumar predeceased his father or survived him. Ajit is dead; he died after Bidhusekhar. His family consists of at the present time, his widow, Bijan Bashini & three sons Rashamoy Guna...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mahaluxmi Cotton Mills Ltd.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal399,54CWN70
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is an application for sanction of a scheme of arrangement under Section 153, Companies Act. The Company was incorporated in the year 1921 with an authorised capital of Rs. 20,00,000 divided into 80,000 shares of Rs. 25 each. The authorised capital is now divided into 4,00,000 shares of Rs. 5 each. The issued capital is RS. 20,00,000 and the amount of capital paid up or credited as paid up is Rs. 19,86,898. The Registered Office of the Company is at 18, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. The object of the Company is, inter alia, to deal in cotton and to carry on the business of ginning cotton, spinning yarn and manufacture of linen cloth and other goods.2. The Managing Agents of the Company are M/s Hemendra Nath Dutta & Sons Limited, a private limited company. They were so appointed on 10th March 1943 for a period of 20 years. Two of the Directors of the Managing Agency Company, viz., Hemendra Nath Dutta and Rabindra Nath Dutta are also Directors of the Company. The bus...
Tag this Judgment!Kaikhushroo Pirojsha Ghiara Vs. the C.P. Syndicate Ltd.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom134; (1950)52BOMLR189
Fazl Ali, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant after obtaining special leave of this Court and it is directed against a judgment and order of a division bench of the Bombay High Court confirming the judgment and order of a single Judge of that Court by which he dismissed the appellant's motion for setting aside an insolvency notice taken out by the respondent-company.2. The respondent-company is a private limited liability company in which there are only four shareholders, viz. Mrs. Byramji, Mr. and Mrs. Cassad and the appellant. In November, 1945, the company filed a suit (No. 1726 of 1945) in the High Court at Bombay against the appellant claiming a number of reliefs, which need not be set out here. Subsequently, Mrs. Byramji and Mr. and Mrs. Cassad applied to be made parties to the suit and they were joined as plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. After the suit had been heard for some time, a settlement was arrived at between the parties and a consent decree was pass...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Singh Vs. Superintendent, Central Prison
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All4
Malik, C.J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court has referred the following question for decision by a bench :'Can an order under S. 8 (1) (a), U. P. Act IV [4] of 1947, be validly passed against a person, who is already in person (otherwise than under an order Under Section 3(2) of the Act) and who was not arrested with a view to ordering his detention under the Act ?' The whole case has been, however, put up before this Bench for decision under the orders of the Chief Justice, as the learned single Judge has gone out of station during the vacation.2. Mr. S.N. Dwivedi has appeared on be-half of the applicant and from the facts given by him appears that the applicant has been in lawful custody at least from 15th December 1948. The applicant was arrested on 19th November 1948, for breach of an order passed Under Section 144, Criminal P. C. He was granted bail but on 15th December 1948, he was re-arrested for breach of an order passed Under Section 8(l) (f), U. P. Maintenance of Public...
Tag this Judgment!Sugan Chand and anr. Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj24; 1950CriLJ1075
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. The admitted facts of the case are that the accused-applicants had in their possession 'cloth' exceeding ten pounds in weight each at the Beawar Railway Station and bad purchased tickets from Beawar to Bijainagar. Both Beawar and Bijainagar are situated within the Province of Ajmer-Merwara. The contention, as such, on behalf of the accused-applicants before the court is that under para. 3 of General permit No. l appended to Notification no. 1o1/19-Tex 1/48, dated cloth November 1948, the accused-applicants could have taken 'cloth' without any restriction of weight from any place in one zone to any other place in that zone. Paragraph 3 reads that 'any person may transport... by road, air, sea...or as a railway parcel by a passenger train any 'cloth'...from any place in any zone...to any other place in the same zone.' The accused-applicants accordingly could have transported 'cloth' without any restriction of weight from any place in one zone to any other place i...
Tag this Judgment!Gajadhar Singh Vs. Chunni and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All621; 1949CriLJ967
ORDERMalik, C.J.1. A tendency has now grown in this province to use B. 145, Criminal P. 0., with the object of getting into possession of the property so that the other side may be driven to figure as a plaintiff and may have to prove his- title. The Magistrates seem to have forgotten that 8. 115, Criminal P. C, was enaoted not with the object of giving one party an advantage over the other but with the primary object of preventing breach of the peace when such breach was apprehended.2. This reference arises out of an application which was filed as far back as 4th July 1916. There has been no breach of the peaoe so far and protracted evidence has been given by be to the parties to prove who was in possession of the property. The learned Magistrate has held that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace and as he was not in a position to hold who was in possession of the property he has attached the property under Section 146, Criminal P. C, and directed the parties to have their ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Bhal Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All629
ORDERDesai, J.1. This application is directed against an interlocutory order passed by a Magistrate rejecting the applicant's application for a regular trial in place of summary trial, The applicant approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri, who refused to interfere.2. On 1st May 1948, the Station Officer of Neem Gaon submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant for his prosecution under Section 60, Excise Act. It was stated in the charge-sheet that during the search of the applicant's house liquor was recovered and that it was found on analysis to be illicit. The charge-sheet was presented in the Court of the Magistrate through the prosecuting Sub-Inspector, who did not make any alteration in it. The Magistrate issued a summons against the applicant and he appeared in his Court on 27th July 1948. As the prosecution evidence was not present, the case was adjourned to 14th August 1948. On 27th July 1948, the Station Officer added a note on the back of the charge-sheet stating th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6714
- 6715
- 6716
- 6717
- 6718
- 6720
- 6721
- 6722
- 6723
- 6724
- Next ›
- Last »