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
In Re: Bavaji Alias Abdul Muhammad
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad44
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The petitioner who was accused 1 in c. c. No. 146 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Kumbakonam was convicted for the contravention of an order promulgated by the Provincial Government No. 2660, A/45 (C. S.) published at pp. 681 and 582 to Part II of Fort St. George Gazette dated 4th September 1945 which had been continued as an offence by Section 7(1) of central Act XXXIV [24] of 1946 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The said conviction and sentence were confirmed on appeal by the Court of Session, West Tanjore and the present revision is to set aside the aforesaid confirmation of the conviction and sentence.2. P. W. 1 was the Grain Purchase Tahsildar of Tanjore in October 1947 and P. W. .2 was the Inspector of Police, C. I. D. X Branch, Tanjore at the same time. On 3rd October 1947 at about 10-30 P.M. both P. Ws. 1 and 2 proceeded along the flood bank shown in the plan EX, D-5 and found four cart-l...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachala Reddiar Vs. Muthusadasiva Mudaliar and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad261
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal was referred to a Bench as Govinda Menon J. was of opinion that as it raised a question of importance it should be considered by a Bench, particularly in view of the conflict between two decisions, one of a Bench and the other of a single Judge, on the question raised in the appeal. The Bench decision is Venkatarama Sastri v. Venkatanarasimham : AIR1938Mad144 and the decision of the single Judge is Kamalammal v. Rajaratna Naicker : (1949)1MLJ66 .2. The facts out of which this appeal arises may be shortly stated. The respondents obtained a final decree in a mortgage suit on 11th February 1941. The first execution petition was filed on 5th February 1944 for the sale of the properties. That application was returned from time to time for the filing of the sale papers and the encumbrance certificates, and while the decree-holder was praying for extension of time to comply with those requirements, the executing Court required the decree-holder to produced ...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachala Reddiar Vs. Muthusadasiva Mudaliar and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ617
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal was referred to a Bench as Govinda Menon, J., was of opinion that as it raised a question of importance it should be considered by a Bench, particularly in view of the conflict between two decisions, one of a Bench and the other of a Single Judge, on the question raised in the appeal. The Bench decision is Venkatarama Sastri v. Vmkatanarasimhan : AIR1938Mad144 and the decision of the single Judge is Kamalammal v. Rajarathna Naicker : (1949)1MLJ66 ..2. The facts out of which this appeal arises may be shortly stated. The respondents obtained a final decree in a mortgage suit on nth February, 1941. The first execution petition was filed on 5th February, 1944, for the sale of the properties. That application was returned from time to time for the filing of the sale papers and the encumbrance certificates, and while the decree-holder was praying for extension of time to comply with those requirements, the executing Court required the decree-holder to prod...
Tag this Judgment!Rattan Das and ors. Vs. Darshan Dass and ors.
Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950HP15
Bannerji, J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the District Judge, Rampur, dated 18-4-2005 B., affirming a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Chini, dated 12-7-2003 and thereby dismissing the plaintiffs suit. 2. The suit, in which this appeal hag arisen, was brought by Rattan Das and others, who are the appellants against (1) Darshan Das, (2) Jagar Nath, (3) Jheru, (4) Padam Das and (5) Meo Ram, who are respondents to this appeal. There has been no appearance for the respondents, Padam Das and Meo Ram, in this appeal. 3. The suit was for a declaration that the revenue entries by mutation No. 280 on the basis of an alleged gift of one-fourth share of 44 Khasra numbers measuring 188 bighas and 19 biswas (one hundred and eighty-eight bighas and nineteen biswas) in Chak Karoli be declared not to affect the shares of the members of the joint family, constituting the appellants and respondents. 4. Nainsukh (who died without a male issue), Premsukh (whose sons are ...
Tag this Judgment!Rex Vs. Ram Dayal
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All134
ORDERSeth, J.1. This is an application in revision by the Provincial Government against an order of the City Magistrate of Agra, declining to call upon the opposite party to furnish security for good behaviour under Section 109, Criminal P. C.2. The case against the opposite party was that, in the very early hours of the morning of 8th May 1946, at about 1 o'clock, he was found in the city of Agra, concealing his presence with a view to commit an offence, that on being arrested and searched by constable Tota Ram, a jemmy, a lathi and a match box were recovered from his possession, that on being questioned about his name and address, he gave different names and different addresses, and that he had no ostensible means of livelihood. He was thus proceeded against on all the three grounds mentioned in Section 109, Criminal P. C., namely, (1) concealment of presence, (2) want of ostensible means of livelihood and (3) failure to give a satisfactory account of himself.3. The opposite party de...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra De and ors. Vs. the Chief Secretary Government of West Benga ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1950CriLJ169
Harries, C. J.1. These are seven petitions made Under Section 491, Criminal P. 0,, in which prayers are made for the release of certain persona detained in various jails in this province on the ground that their detention is illegal.2. Miscellaneous case No. 102 of 1949 concerned one Bhupen De who ia confined in the Darjeeling Jail. According to his petition he was arrested Under Section 30, West Bengal Security Act on nth May 1949, and an order Under Section 16 of that Act was subsequently made on 3rd Juna 1949, This order was an order for detention for a period of nine months. The petitioner claims that the Act under which he was detained is no longer in force by reasons of The fact that it was not extended in accordance with law. He therefore claims that his detention is unlawful and that he should be released,3. Miscellaneous case No. 103 of 1949 is by a detained person Pangmali Doherty who is confined in the jail at Darjeeling. In this petition ha states that he was arrested on 21...
Tag this Judgment!Benode Behary Roy Vs. the General Assurance Society Ltd.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal232
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. The plaintiff sues the defendant company for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 6,184 as being the gratuity alleged to be earned by the plaintiff as an employee of the defendant company. The defendant company resists the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the bye-laws which entitled the plaintiff at one stage of his service to claim the gratuity had been altered before the termination of the plaintiff's services. The vexed question as to how far a company by altering its bye-laws can prejudicially affect an employee's contract of service has been raised in this suit.2. The facts may be stated very briefly. The plaintiff was appointed Secretary of the Company in October 1924 at a salary of Rs. 160 per month and it is the pleading of the plaintiff that such appointment was subject to and in terms of the regulations contained in the then bye-laws of the defendant company. He thereafter rose to the position of the Officiating General Manager of the Company in 1982-88. His...
Tag this Judgment!Malladi Seetharama Sastri Vs. the Hyderabad State Represented by the G ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad30
ORDERMack, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff, a merchant of Bezwada, who sued the Nizam State Railway of Hyderabad for the recovery of Rs. 305 being the value of some machinery he consigned: on 21st August 1944 from Bezwada to the Circar Engineering Company, Lahore. It is common ground that the goods had to be carried over three railways. Plaintiff received from the consignee a letter Ex. p-1 dated 7th November 1944 to the effect that the goods had not reached him. He sent a notice to the railway company on 8th February 1945 complaining that the goods had not been delivered and asking for payment of their value. To this letter he was not vouchsafed any reply. He then, after going through the necessary formalities, filed this suit on 31st October 1945. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed it as time-barred under Article 31, Limitation Act which prescribes as the period of limitation for a suit against a carrier for compensation, non-delivery or delay in delivering goods one year f...
Tag this Judgment!Koduri Narayana Reddi and ors. Vs. Levur Gopalareddi and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad36
Govinda Menon, J.1. In this second appeal preferred by defendants 4 to 6 and 8 in O. S. No. 56 of 1943 in the Court of the District Munsif of Kavali against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore in A. S. No. 189 of 1945, the only question that has been canvassed is whether the lower appellate Court was right in differing from the trial Court and holding that the plaintiff is entitled to cut a vent at the place marked C in the channel mentioned in the plan filed along with the plaint.2. What happened was that in the trial Court the plaintiff was given a decree that he was entitled to irrigate his lands specified in the plaint schedule and marked yellow in the plan from the channel C E and the defendants were restrained by a permanent injunction from interfering with the said right of the plaintiff. In giving this decree the learned District Munsif towards the end of para. 8 of his judgment, observed as follows:'I therefore hold following the order Ex. P-5 that the plaintiff i...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalapurapu Dakshayani, Minor by Next Friend Koniki Nagabhushanam Vs ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad37
ORDERMack, J.1. This petition hag been filed on behalf of a minor wife by next friend to revise the order of the learned District Judge of Guntur declining to set aside a custody order he passed in O. P. No. 118 of 1947 on 80th September 1947 on the ground that he had not consulted the wishes of the minor who was a grown up girl before he passed his order.2. The custody order is as follows :'The petitioner as the husband of the minor wife is in law entitled to her custody especially when it is found from his evidence which has not been challenged that his marriage with the minor was consummated three years ago. The respondents have no objection to restore custody. They have endorsed on the petition to that effect. I therefore order the custody of the minor to the petitioner. The parties shall bear their own costs.'3. The respondents to the original petition were the girl's sister and her husband. Along with this revision petition an application for stay of the custody order was admitte...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6721
- 6722
- 6723
- 6724
- 6725
- 6727
- 6728
- 6729
- 6730
- 6731
- Next ›
- Last »