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
Pheru Vs. Bhagavana
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All96
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Pheru filed a plaint in the revenue Court under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act of 1939, alleging that Bhagwana defendant had taken forcible possession of the land without his consent, he being the occupancy tenant of that land. Later, he amended the plaint to the effect that the defendant was a zamindar entitled to realise rent and had taken possession of the land and prevented the plaintiff from occupying it. The learned Assistant Collector ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court, holding that no suit lay under Section 183, Tenancy Act against one of the landlords and that a suit against a trespasser was, according to a certain case, cognizable only by the civil Court. The plaintiff, therefore, filed his plaint in the Court of the Munsif, Gaziabad. The Munsif came to a different opinion. He thought that, as the plaint did not allege that the defendant was one of the zamindars, which was an admitted fact, the Court could not have take...
Tag this Judgment!Janwahar and anr. Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ890
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. The counsel for the applicants has pressed the application in revision mainly on two grounds-firstly ,that there was no proper sanction to prosecute the applicants Under Section 10, Cotton Textile (Control of Movement) Order, 1946, and secondly, that there was no application on behalf of the prosecution to try the case summarily.3. The complaint before the tri3l Court was lodged on 12-6-1948, and the processes against the applicants wore issued the game day for their presence on 8-7-1948. The sanction of the Chief Commissioner appears to have been filed before the trial Court on 8-7-1948. The sanction or the other papers on the record of the trial Court in no way go to show as to what facts had been placed for obtaining sanction before the Chief Commissioner, The sanction, in the circumstances, could be held to be no valid sanction within the meaning of Section 10, Cotton Textile (Control of Movement) Order, 1916. The counsel for the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Kadiyala Peravadhannulu Vs. Kadiyala Peravadhannulu Minor by Mother an ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad26
ORDERMack, J.1. This petition raises a simple question of court-fee.2. Petitioner is the defendant who in a joint family partition suit against him brought by his grandson was directed to pay a sum of over Rs. 20,000 on an account being taken of out-standings due. In an appeal to the District Court, he sought to value it under Article 17B of Schedule II, Court-fees Act at Rs. 3100 + 100 adopting the plaint valuation. The learned District Judge held on the strength of the Full Bench decision of this Court in In re Dhanukondi Nayakar, I. L. R. (1938) Mad. 598 : A. I. R. 1938 Mad. 435 that he should pay ad valorem court-fee on the relief that he wished to avoid. In that decision the learned Full Bench overruled the decision in In re Nukala Venkatanandam, 66 Mad. 705: A. I. R. 1933 Mad. 330 and held that in a final decree in an account suit, a defendant knew exactly the value of his relief and must pay court-fee accordingly.3. Mr. Somasundaram has sought to differentiate between an ordinar...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagavatula Gopalakrishnamurthi and ors. Vs. Dhulipalla Sreedhara Rao ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad32
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. Petitioners are defendants 14 and 22 in O. S. No. 59 of 1945 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali. The suit was for partition and for possession after setting aside certain alienations. The defendant is the father of the plaintiffs. He was adjudicated insolvent and the Official Receiver was made a party to the suit. The suit relates to the setting aside of alienations not only made by the father but also by the Official Receiver and para. 5 of the plaint states:'There was no proper vesting order passed in favour of the Official Receiver, Neither the half share of plaintiff 1 nor the father's power to sell the same was or could be vested in the Official Receiver in I. P. No. 33 of 1930. The latter could if at all deal with defendant 1's half share. The Official Receiver sold the insolvent's right title and interest in the properties mentioned as items 6 to 17 of Schedule. B without covenanting for the existence or extent of the title o...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. A. Krishnaswamy Vs. V. Natesan and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ446
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes ordering inspection of the marked electoral roll, counterfoils of the ballot papers, unused ballot papers, tendered and challenged votes and the return of the polling officers, to the first respondent who was the petitioner in Election Petition No. 1 of 1948 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras.2. The first respondent was the unsuccessful candidate in a municipal election, and he filed Election Petition No. 1 of 1948, for declaring that the election of the first respondent who is the petitioner here who was the successful candidate for the 26th division, as invalid and for setting aside the election. There was also a prayer that a fresh election be ordered. The ground on which he filed the Election Petition was, among others, that there was false personation and the election has been materially affected by such false personation. During the pendency of th...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Nadar Vs. Chinnadorai Nadar and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad643
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by defendant 3 against the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in A. S. No. 65 of 1945. The lower appellate Court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of 5/18 share in the B schedule properties on payment of Rs. 225. Defendant 3 has preferred an appeal objecting to the decree for partition passed in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 sail along with defendant 3 though they have not preferred an appeal. They have however been made respondents to the appeal and hence the case of defendants 1 to 4 falls to be considered in this second appeal.2. The plaintiff's father created a mortgage over his share of certain property on foot of which a suit, O. S. No. 261 of 1926, was filed by the mortgagee. On 22-7-1930 a final decree was passed against the plaintiff's father for a sum of Rs. 500. The plaintiff's father died in June 1933. He left behind him two sons of whom...
Tag this Judgment!Bereng Griffith Lerotholi and Others Vs. the King
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1950PC10
LORD REID: On 15th November 1948, in the High Court of Basutoland the appellants were found guilty of the murder of Meleke Ntai and sentenced to death. The principal evidence against them was the evidence of four accomplices and the main ground of this appeal was that the learned Judge who convicted the appellants misdirected himself in law in considering the evidence of the accomplices. The trial in this case took place before the decision of the Board in Tumahole Bereng and others v. The King, 1949 AC 253: (AIR (36) 1949 PC 172). It was admitted that the learned Judge in this case properly applied the law as it was thought to be in Basutoland before that decision, bat it was argued that if the grounds of decision in Tumahole Bereng's case (1949 AC 253 : AIR (36) 1949 PC 172) are applied in this case these convictions cannot stand. Their Lordships must therefore first consider what was decided in Tumahole's case (1949 AC 358 : AIR (36) 1949 PC 173). 2. The law in Basutoland with regar...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Anant Prabhu Vs. Anandrao Vishnu Phanse
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom120
ORDERShah, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. 1908. The petitioner is one Gopal Anant Prabhu who says that he was a sub-tenant of certain premises, being rooms Nos. 14 and 15 and shops Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 on the ground floor of a property known as No. 11 Phanse Building situate at Tulsirampada, Kalachowki, Bombay. The respondent, Anandrao Vishnu, is the owner of the property; and he let out the premises in dispute in the present application to one Hanumanta Naik as a monthly tenant. Sometime after the tenancy commenced, it is stated, Hanumanta Naik, the tenant, assigned or sub-let the premises to the petitioner, Gopal Anant Prabhu, in February 1946. Thereafter the respondent took out a summons, which was numbered as Suit No. 191/ 2987 of 1947 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, for an order requiring the tenant Hanumanta Naik to deliver possession of the premises in his occupation as a tenant, on the allegation that he had served a notice termi...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Kishori Lal and anr. Vs. Haji Muhammad Nazir and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All97
1. Seth Kishori Lal and Seth Babu Lal, as mortgagees under a mortgage deed executed by Yusuf Ali Khan on 23rd February 1929, with respect to Khewat No. 24 in mohal Naukheel village, Sikandra Rao filed their written statement of claim in proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act on the application of Yusuf Ali Khan. Haji Mohammad Nazir and Mohammad Basbir also filed their written statements of claim on the basis of mortgage deeds executed in their favour in 1931, and later with respect to khewat 24 of mohal Naukheel and other property. Money decrees were passed on the basis of these claims by the Special Judge, and the debts in favour of these mortgagees were ranked in class 4, without any ranking inter se among those debts in class 4. It was ordered that all the debts of class 4 would be treated as of equal rank. It is against this order of the Special Judge, first grade, that this appeal has been filed by Seth Kishori Lal and Seth Babu Lal.2. The contention for the appellants is th...
Tag this Judgment!Bammidi Nagula Vs. Bhanoji Row
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad123
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order dismissing the election petition filed by the petitioner before Sri. T. Srirangam Naidu who was the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam and Election Commissioner. The petition was filed for a declaration that the election of the respondent was void and for a declaration that the petitioner had been duly elected. The grounds on which the petition was filed were, (1) that the respondent was disqualified for election as Councillor under Clause (2) of Section 49, Madras District Municipalities Act, inasmuch as he is a partner and director of the General Engineering and Trading Corporation Ltd., Vizagapatam, interested in a subsisting contract with the Municipal Council, Vizagapatam; (2) that he was also disqualified under Section 49 (2), Madras District Municipalities Act since the respondent being a hereditary member of the Managing Committee of the Mrs. A. V. N. College is the Official Superior of the Sitting Counc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6730
- 6731
- 6732
- 6733
- 6734
- 6736
- 6737
- 6738
- 6739
- 6740
- Next ›
- Last »