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
Pran Krishna Das Vs. Shyam Sundar Sarkar
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1950CriLJ205
ORDERSen, J.1. This is a Reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Malda, West Dinajpur, recommending that the order passed in proceedings Under Section 133, Criminal P.C. by Sri T. P. Ghose, Magistrate exercising First Class Powers at Balurghat, should be set aside.2. The facts briefly are as follows : Pran Krishna Das filed an application Under Section 133, Criminal P.C. in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Balurghat, alleging that the petitioner 'rihyimi Bundar Sarkar had obstructed a public pathway, Upon this application being made, the Magistrate ordered a preliminary enquiry by the police and thereafter he passed a conditional order Under Section 183, Criminal P.C. directing the petitioner to remove the obstruction or to appear before him and move to have the conditional order set aside. When the petitioner appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate the learned Magistrate instead of holding any enquiry himself passed a somewhat curious order which I repro...
Tag this Judgment!Dhondi Ganapati Patil Vs. Maruti Govind Patil and anr.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom83
Chagla, C.J.1. A short but interesting point is raised in this second appeal as to the law which is applicable to the parties with regard to adoption after the Jath State was merged in the Province of Bombay. The District Judge of Jath held that a widow of a deceased coparcener was not entitled to adopt without the consent of the other coparceners and in doing so he followed a very early decision of this Court reported in Ramji v. Ghamau 6 Bom. 498 and he also followed a decision of the Supreme Court of Jath. Now, the Notification issued by the Government of Bombay on 2nd March 1948, under the Extra-Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947, makes provision as to the jurisdiction of the High Court and what law it has to administer when cases which were pending before Jath Courts stand transferred to this Court. By Section 4 of that Notification any law relating to any of the matters enumerated in Lists II and III in Schedule 7 to the Government of India Act, 1935, or any notification, order, s...
Tag this Judgment!Namdeo Lokman Lodhi Vs. Narmadabai Keshoodeo
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR987
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court of Poona, exercising appellate powers, confirming a decree for ejectment passed by the learned Extra Joint Subordinate Judge at Poona. The ejectment was sought by the landlord on the ground of non-payment of rent, and the main point that has been urged before us by Mr. Abhyankar and Mr. Kotwal is that inasmuch as no notice was given by the landlord determining the lease on the ground of non-payment of rent, there was no forfeiture and there was no right on the part of the landlord to re-enter the demised premises.2. Now, the law with regard to forfeiture is contained in Section 111(if) of the Transfer of Property Act, and a forfeiture results and a lease is determined in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that on breach thereof the lessor may re-enter, or in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in h...
Tag this Judgment!Namdeo Lokman Lodhi Vs. Narmadabai Keshoodeo and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom123
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court of Poona, exercising appellate powers, confirming a decree for ejectment passed by the learned Extra Joint Subordinate Judge at Poona. The ejectment was sought by the landlord on the ground of non-payment of rent, and the main point that has been urged before us by Mr. Abhyankar and Mr. Kotwal is that inasmuch as no notice was given by the landlord determining the lease on the ground of non-payment of rent, there was no forfeiture and there was no right on the part of the landlord to re-enter the demised premises.2. Now, the law with regard to forfeiture is contained in Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, and a forfeiture results and a lease is determined in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that on breach thereof the lessor may re-enter, or in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bharose and ors. Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All149
ORDERSeth, J.1. The applicants have been convicted of an offence under Section 17 (2), Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act XIV [14] of 1908). It has been found that they were members of a procession which paraded through the town of Kasganj, shouting Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh slogans. It has also been found that the three applicants were members of the Sangh which had been declared to be an illegal body by the Government.2. The question for consideration is whether all these acts are offences under Section 17 (2), Criminal Law Amendment Act. Section 17 (2), Criminal Law Amendment Act reads as follows:'Whoever manages or assists in the management of an unlawful association, or promotes or assists in promoting a meeting of any such association, or of any members thereof as such members, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.'3. There is no proof that the applicants managed or assisted in the management of the unlawful as...
Tag this Judgment!Kamla Pandey Vs. the King
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1949CriLJ1009
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Sessions Judge cancelling the petitioner's bail, The petitioner together with a man named Nageswar were charged with stealing from a railway wagon. Nageswar has been granted bail and he is still on bail, end it is to be observed that the allegation is that certain stolen property was found on a search of Nageswar's house.2. The petitioner was eventually granted bail by this learned Sessions Judge, but granted bail upon a condition, namely, that he did not leave the limits of the town of Midnapore, Had the petitioner been living in Midnapore no objection could be taken to this condition. But the petitioner is not an inhabitant of Midnaporo, but lived with his family at Kharagpur. Imposing a condition that he should not leave Midnapore is praotically tantamount to refusing bail. How can a man in ordinary oiroumstanoes afford to live at Midnapore when his family livod at Ebaragpur and in all probability his sole mean...
Tag this Judgment!Rulia Ram Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All716; 1950CriLJ42
ORDERSeth, J.1. Applicant Rulia Ram has been convicted of offences alleged to have been constituted by the disobedience of provisions contained in Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of an order promulgated on 29th February 1943, by the District Magistrate of Muzafl arnagar, purporting to act under; powers conferred upon him by the U. P, Bricks Control Ordor, 1916.2. The case against the applicant was that he, being a brick manufacturer, was allotted a wagon of coal duat, but that he did not maintain a stock register or daily accounts and that he did not submit monthly statements of bricks to the District Supply Officer and further that he sold the bricks manufactured by him without the permit of the District Supply Officer.3. The facts found by the lower Appellate Court have not been disputed, as indeed they cannot be disputed in a criminal revision. It has, however, been contended that these facts do not constitute an offence and that the various clauses of the order promulgated by the District Magis...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Gulab Singh Vs. District Magistrate
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All11
Wali Ullah Ag., C.J.1. This is an application Under Section 491, Criminal P. C. The applicant, Sir Gulab Singh, is the ex-Maharaja, Rewa State. The Rewa State acceded to the Indian Union in August 1947. On 20th May 1948, the Governor-General passed an order addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Dehra Dun. It is an order passed under the provisions of the Bengal State Prisoners Regulation, 1818, as adapted by the Bengal State Prisoners Regulation (Adaptation) Order, 1947, promulgated on 26th August 1947, and directs that Sir Gulab Singh, the applicant, shall be placed under personal restraint at No. 10, Dolialwala, Dehra Dun, and be dealt with in accordance with the orders of the Government and the provisions of the Bengal State Prisoners Regulations, 1818. In pursuance of this order--the warrant of commitment--the applicant is being kept in personal restraint at Dehra Dun. By means of this application, it is prayed that the applicant may be set at liberty inasmuch as his detention...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimaji Krishnarao Vs. Hanmantrao Vinayak and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom271; (1950)52BOMLR290
Chagla, C.J.1. The facts leading up to this first appeal are that one Vinayak Bothe had three sons, Dattatraya, Hanmantrao and Krishnaji. Vinayak and Dattatraya died long before 1923. Krishnaji died in 1923 leaving Hanmantrao as the sole surviving coparcener of the joint and undivided Hindu family, Krishnaji'a widow Eukhminibai adopted the plaintiff on 25th Jane 1935 and the plaintiff filed this suit for his half share in the joint family properties. The learned Judge gave relief to the plaintiff with regard to some properties, but in the main held that the alienations made by Hanmantrao were binding on him and he could not challenge those alienations and therefore refused to give the plaintiff relief. All the alienations challenged which were made by Hanmantrao were prior to 25th June 1935, and really the only question that has been agitated before us in this first appeal is whether Hanmantrao as the sole surviving coparcener was entitled to alienate joint family properties and whethe...
Tag this Judgment!State Through Public Prosecutor Vs. Balwant Singh Onkar Singh
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950MP43; 1950CriLJ1131
ORDERRege, J.1. This is a petition by the learned Public Prosecutor, Indore for cancellation of bail. The opponent Balwanta Singh was accused of causing the death of one Dhulji and put up before the Manawar Magistrate for enquiry into a charge Under Section 292, Tajirat Gwalior (302 of the Penal Code), but the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that there were not sufficient grounds to justify a commitment on that charge and in accordance with the local practice he referred the case to the District Sub-Judge. The learned SubJudge disagreeing with the Magistrate's view sent up the accused for trial on a charge of murder Under Section 292, Gwalior Tajirat. It appears that the accused who had been released on bail by the Magistrate was sent up in the custody by the learned Sub-Judge, to the Sessions Judge, , and he remained in custody until after the close of the ease foe the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge released him on his executing a bond for appearance in a sum of Rs. 25O...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6719
- 6720
- 6721
- 6722
- 6723
- 6725
- 6726
- 6727
- 6728
- 6729
- Next ›
- Last »