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
A.W. Khan Vs. Mt. Zaitunbi and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1950CriLJ451
ORDERV.R. Sen, J.1. The applicant A. W. Khan is the husband of Zaitunbi and father of Mt. Nur Jahan, aged 3 years. According to the applicant an application Under Section 488, Criminal P.C. was made by Mt. Zaitunbi for maintenance of herself and her child (Miscellaneous criminal Case no. so of 1947). After some evidence had been recorded, the application was dismissed for default of appearance of Zaitunbi on 8th January 1949. tihe filed a second application under B. 488 on practically the same facts (Miscellaneous criminal case No. 216 of 1948).2. The applicant raised an objection to the maintainability of the application. The objec. tion was overruled by Bhri N. P. Bharadwaj, Magistrate, First Class, Raipur, by his order dated 18th February 1919. In his view the application was not barred as the previous application had been dismissed for default and there was no adjudication on merits. The applicant filed criminal Revision No. 120 of 1949 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Raipur, w...
Tag this Judgment!Balekkala Subraya Bhatta Vs. Nuliyal Govinda Bhat
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad33
Raghava Rao, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was dismissed by the trial Court but decreed on appeal.2. Defendant 1 is the appellant. He is the assignee from one Gowaramma of her rights 1950 M/5 & 6 under a certain maintenance decree obtained by her in a pauper suit filed by her. The present plaintiff was defendant 1 and the present defendants 2 and 3 were also defendants 2 and 3 in that suit, In and by the final event and result of that litigation evidenced by Ex. P-3 dated 18th August 1941, the present plaintiff was completely exonerated from the suit and the suit dismissed as against him. Gowaramma was directed to pay half the court-fee due to Government and defendants 2 and 3 the other half 'if not already recovered by the Government in terms of the prior decrees passed in this suit.' Plaintiff in the present case is seeking to recover back the amount paid by him to Government under a decree passed in the course of the former litigation (EX. P-1) on 9th March 19...
Tag this Judgment!G.F.F. Foulkes and ors. Vs. A.S. Suppan Chettiar and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad296; (1950)2MLJ220
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. These two appeals arise out of a suit, O. Section No. 67 of 1943, instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura by two plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the other creditors of the estate of one Robert Foulkes deceased, for an administration of his estate and inter alia to declare certain alienations effected by defendant 1 as the administrator of the said estate in favour of defendants 3 to 7 invalid and not binding upon the plaintiffs and the other creditors of the estate, and for directions for the proper disposal of the properties comprised in the said estate, and, alternatively, to direct defendant 1, in any event, to make good to the plaintiffs, the loss of Rs. 1,32,268-9-8 with subsequent interest thereon, occasioned by reason of his acts of devastavit. The learned Subordinate Judge granted a decree personally against defendant 1 for rendition of accounts of the assets and income of the estate of Robert Foulkes (deceased) from 14...
Tag this Judgment!Guruswami Goundan and ors. Vs. Marappa Goundan and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad140
Govinda Menon, J.1. These are connected appeals and can be disposed of by a common judgment. S. A. No. 486 of 1946 arises out of O. S. No. 398 of 1943 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Gobichettipalayam in which the appellants were defendants 1 to 5. Appellant 5 having died pending the second appeal, appellant 6 was brought on record as his legal representative, The appellants in S. A. No. 487 of 1946 which arises out of O. S. No. 119 of 1943-on the file of the same District Munsif's Court were plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 in that suit. The contesting respondent in both the second appeals is the same individual and he was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 398 of 1943 and defendant 1 in O. S. No. 119 of 1943. In order to-appreciate the contentions of the parties, it win, be convenient to set out the relation between them as shown in the plaint in 0. S. No. 898 of 1943 and set out in the judgment of the learned Sudbordinate Judge in para. 12 of his judgment AMMAVASAI GOUND...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Rasool Saheb Vs. Hamida Bibi
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad189
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of Trichinopoly, who on appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge allowed the plaintiff's application for removal of obstruction by the appellant in this civil miscellaneous second appeal and delivery of possession.2. The property in dispute and other properties belonged to one Haji Muhammad Ibrahim who died on 17th December 1912. After his death, there was a partition on 18th January 1916 between the two sons of Haji Muhammad, i. e., Peer Muhammad and Sulaiman and in that partition Peer Muhammad got for his share the suit property. On 23rd June 1921, Peer Muhammad settled the property now in dispute on his wife Rahiman Bibi. On 11th September 1922, Rahiman Bibi mortgaged the property to one Sikkandar, the father of the present appellant. In the year 1924, a suit for partition was filed by the two daughters of Haji Muhammad impleading the other sharers as defendants and Rahiman Bibi was imple...
Tag this Judgment!K.P.S. Thangaswamy Chettiyar Vs. A. Bapoo Sahib
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ699
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The property which forms the subject-matter of these proceedings is a shop in Big Bazaar Street, Tiruchirapalli town. The appellant who is the owner of the property applied to the Rent Controller for eviction of the respondent who was his tenant on the grounds that he required the shop for ' his own use, and that the tenant was in arrears with his rent. The Rent Controller recorded no finding on the question whether the landlord required the shop for his own use; but he found that the respondent was in arrear of rent for June 1947 and therefore passed an order evicting him from the premises. The appellant put the order in execution as soon as he could and actually took possession of the property on 22nd June, 1948. The tenant appealed to the Sub-Judge who reversed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petition for eviction. That order was pronounced on the 25th of August, 1948. Mr. Vaidyanatha Aiyar for the appellant complained that the order made i...
Tag this Judgment!K.P.S. Thangaswamy Chettiar Vs. A. Bapoo Sahib
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad804
Balakrishna Ayyab, J.1. The property which forms the subject-matter of these proceedings is a shop in Big Bazzar Street, Tiruchirappalli town. The applt. who is the owner of the property applied to the Rent Controller for eviction of the resp. who was his tenant on the grounds that he required the shop for his own use, & that the tenant was in arrears with his rent. The Rent Controller recorded no finding on the question whether the landlord required the shop for his own use; but he found that the resp. was in arrear of rent for June 1947 & therefore passed an order evicting him from the premises. The applt. put the order in execution as soon as he could & actually took possession of the property on 22-6-1948. The tenant appealed to the Sub-Judge who reversed the order of the Rent Controller & dismissed the petns. for eviction. That order was pronounced on 25-8-1948. Mr. Vaidyanatha Ayyar for the applt. complained that the order made in the appeal was inequitable; but into that matter ...
Tag this Judgment!Balaram Mandal Vs. Sahebjan Gazi and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal85,54CWN139
G.N. Das, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5, Court-fees Act and raises three questions for decision, viz., (1) whether one valuation should be put under Section 7(4)(c), Court-fees Act, subject to correction by the Court under Section 8(c), Court-fees Act; (2) where the defendant and not the plaintiff is before the Court, what is the procedure to be followed for valuing the relief and (3) whether Section 17(2), Court-fees Act as amended would apply to cases arising under Section 7(4)(c), Court-fees Act.2. The substance of the plaint, as it appears from the report of the Stamp Reporter, is that the plaintiff brought the suit out of which the appeal arises on the allegation that the disputed property belonged to one Akazaddin and others. The plaintiff purchased the same by a registered deed of sale for a consideration of Rs. 1,000 from the said Akazaddin and others in the benami of of his brother-in-law defendant 1. The plaintiff went into possession of the property purchased by h...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sir Harilal Nemchand Gosalia
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom74
Chagla, C.J.1. This is a reference under S. 5, Court-fees Act, 1870, and the very narrow question that calls for our determination is the meaning to be given to the expression appearing in Schedule III, in, Court-fees Act in Annexure B of that schedule, 'amount of debts due and owing from the deceased, payable by law out of the estate.' Now, under Section 19-I, Court fees Act,'no order entitling the petitioner to the grant of probate or letters of administration shall be made upon an application for such grant until the petitioner has filed in the Court a valuation of the property in the form set forth in the third schedule.'and the third schedule sets out the form and in that form in Annexure A has to be set out the value of the moveable and immoveable properties of the deceased and in Annexure B a schedule of debts has got to be set out and the first item in the schedule of debts is amount of debts due and owing from the deceased, payable by law out of the estate. The petitioner in t...
Tag this Judgment!Sat NaraIn Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All86
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. When the complainant himself considers this compensation as adequate I do not think it was proper for the learned Sessions Judge to hold it was insufficient. A compromise in a case like this will conduce to amicable relationship between the parties and the dispute will be better settled by accepting the compromise rather than by inflicting a punishment upon the accused. The accused is genuinely sorry for what was done and has paid pecuniary compensation to the complainant for his mistakes. In these circumstances I grant permission for compounding) the case and I accept the compromise.2. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the appellant is acquitted....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6729
- 6730
- 6731
- 6732
- 6733
- 6735
- 6736
- 6737
- 6738
- 6739
- Next ›
- Last »