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
Rai Surendra Nath and ors. Vs. Sm. Naraini Devi
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1951All69
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is a second appeal from an order passed by Mr. Oak, District Judge of Azamgarh, upholding in appeal the order, dated 24-7-1943, passed by the late Lal Bhagwati Dayal Singh, Civil Judge, dismissing the objections of the judgment-debtors in an execution proceeding. The undisputed facts are as follows :2. On 25-3-1934, one Rai Achhuta Nand executed a pronote in favour of the decree-holder respondent, Sm. Naraini Devi. In 1937, she brought a suit on the foot of the pronote for the, recovery of the amount due under it. On 5-4-1937, a compromise decree was passed according to which the amount sued for together with pendente lite and future interest and costs were decreed. The said amount was payable in thirteen six-monthly instalments. It was stipulated that a period of grace of two months would be allowed for payment of every instalment, but in the event of default of any three instalments the entire decretal amount was to become due at once. Rai Achhuta Nand di...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Bahadur Singh and ors. Vs. Ballabh Das and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All94
1. This execution of decree appeal is preferred by the judgment-debtor. The material facts are as follows :2. On 17th April 1920, a preliminary decree for sale on the basis of a deed of mortgage was passed by the Subordinate Judge, Barabanki, for RS. 1,06,660 with future interest at Rs. 5-4-0 per cent. per annum in favour of Gobardhan Das. A final decree on the basis of this preliminary decree was passed on 27th January 1923. On 19th March 1931, the names of Ballabh Das and Madan Murari, opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, were substituted on the record as Gobardhan Das, the original mortgagee, was dead and they were his legal representatives. On 1st July 1932 Ballabh Das and Madan Murari applied for execution of their decree. They sought execution against Narendra Bahadur Singh, Rudr Pratap Singh. Jang Bahadur Singh and Sri Chandar Singh. Jang Bahadur Singh and Sri Chandar Singh were minors. It appears that there was a partition among the descendants of the original mortgagor Inder Dawan S...
Tag this Judgment!Jagan Nath and ors. Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ883
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. This iS an application in revision by Jagan Nath and five others from the order of Mr. T. Ramabhadran, I.C. S., Sessions Judge, Ajmer-Merwara, Ajraer, partly setting aside the order of the trial Court discharging them in respect of offences punishable Under Section 82, Registration Act and under aSection 177, 183 and 420, Penal Code, and directing them to be tried afresh in accordance with law in respect of an offence punishable under Section 177, Penal Code. The facts that have given rise to the application for revision are briefly as below: The applicants executed a sale-deed in respect of a certain piece of land, and got it registered on 22nd September 1917. The land was described therein as having a 'pacca boundary wall, trees and a garden being inside 'abadi.' The contention of the prosecution before the Court below was that the property sold, in fact, was 'land' within the meaning of Section 3 of Regulation lit [3] of 1914 and that, as such, the applicant...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A. Govindaswamy and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad31
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The petitioners have been sentenced under Section 75, City Police Act to undergo three weeks rigorous imprisonment each for behaving in a riotous, disorderly or indecent manner and have also been directed to execute bonds themselves for Rs. 50 each with one surety for Rs. 50 each for six months after release under Section 106, Criminal P. C. Mr. Mani, for the petitioners, urged that Section 75 would apply only to persons guilty of riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour as a result of being drunk and not as here, without being drunk and in a perfectly sober mood. I cannot agree. Section 75 punishes both drunkards incapable of taking care of themselves, and people, guilty of riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour in any public place, etc., like these petitioners. The petitioners abused in filthy and indecent language, the loyal workers and behaved in a riotous, disorderly and indecent fashion in a public place and were rightly convicted under Section 7...
Tag this Judgment!Saboora Bivi Ammal Vs. Julaika Bivi Ammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad144
Govinda Menon, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam has construed the expression 'expenses of the commission' in Order XXVI, Rule 15, Civil P. C., as including the expenses to be defrayed by the opposite party to the one applying for the issue of a Commission for proceeding from the locality where the Court is situate to the place where the commissioner is to function. There is no direct authority on the point except the observations of my learned brother, Mack J. in Abdurahim Settu v. Muhammad Kesam Setti : (1948)2MLJ652 where the learned Judge observes that:'The 'expenses of the commission' can be made to include expenses of the other parties to the litigation and can in suitable cases be ordered to be deposited by the party at whose instance the commission was taken out.'It seems to me that this proposition has been very widely stated. The phrase 'expenses of the commission' in ordinary parlance would mean only what the Commissioner has to spend for summoning witnesses a...
Tag this Judgment!Thangaswami Pillai by Agent, Ganapathi Nadar Vs. Dhanabagyammal and or ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad155
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The point for decision in this revision petition is whether the court-fee paid by the plaintiff is correct. The plaintiff is the petitioner. The suit is for recovery of possession and the prayer in the plaint is that the plaintiff be put in possession of the 'undermentioned' properties through process of Court and free from the obstruction of the respondents. The suit is in respect of the properties of one Srinivasa Pillai. The plaintiff is the brother's son and defendant 1 is the widow. On 26th August 1911, Srinivasa Pillai executed a will, whereby he created a trust of his properties and, during the minority of the plaintiff, appointed defendant 1 and the mother of the plaintiff as joint testamentary guardians to manage the estate and to perform the trust. In execution of two money decrees obtained by defendant 11 against defendant 1 one in respect of a personal debt due by her and the other in respect of a debt due under a promissory note executed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Thangasami Pillai by Agent Ganapathi Nadar Vs. Dhanabagyammal and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ565
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The point for decision in this revision petition is whether the Court-fee paid by the plaintiff is correct. The plaintiff is the petitioner. The suit is for recovery of possession and the prayer in the plaint is that the plaintiff be put in possession of the ' undermentioned ' properties through process of Court and free from the obstruction of the respondents. The suit is in respect of the properties of one Srinivasa Pillai. The plaintiff is the brother's son and the first defendant is the widow. On 26th August, 1911, Srinivasa Pillai executed a will, whereby he created a trust of his properties and, during the minority of the plaintiff, appointed the first defendant and the mother of the plaintiff as joint testamentary guardians to manage the estate and to perform the trust. In execution of two money decrees obtained by the nth defendant against the first defendant one in respect of a personal debt due by her and the other in respect of a debt due under a pr...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Ballabh Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj21; 1950CriLJ905
Atma Charan, J.C.1. This is an appeal by Radha Ballabh from the order of Raizada Gurcharan Dass, Sessions Judge, Ajmer Merwara, dated 10th January 1949, convicting him Under Section 324, Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment. There is also an appeal on behalf of the Crown that Radha Ballabh be convicted Under Section 302, Penal Code, or in the alternative under section 307 and 326, Penal Code and an appropriate sentence be passed on him. This is Criminal Appeal No. VII [7] of 1949.2. Beni Prasad is the deceased, and was the son-in law of Pearey Lai of Ajmer, Jogeshwar is the brother of the deceased Radha Ballabh is the accused, and is married to the niece of the deceased. The case of the prosecution is that on 7th February 1913 at about 7-80 p. M. Beni Prasad, Jogeshwar and Pearey Lai were sitting. together on the third storey of the house of Pearey Lai at Ajmer, Radha Ballabh came, and also at down there. He asked Jogeshwar and Pearey Lai to leave...
Tag this Judgment!Promod Chandra Shekhar Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1951All546
ORDERMootham, J.1. In view of the order which I propose to make in this case it is unnecessary to state the facts at any length. The applicant was the stenographer of the District Magistrate; of Bulandshahr and it is not in dispute that-he is a public servant. On 19-11-1947, he received from one Fakira two ten-rupee notes-It is the case for the prosecution that he accepted these notes as a gratification other than legal remuneration, in respect of an official act, and thereby committed an offence punishable? under Section 161, Penal Code. The receipt of the notes is admitted by the applicant, but he says that they were received by him in exchange for notes of the same total value, but of smaller denomination, given by him to Fakira.2. Section 3, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II [2] of 1947), provides, inter alia, that an offence punishable under Section 161, Penal Code, shall be deemed to be a cognisable offence for the purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To this section ...
Tag this Judgment!Bisheshwar Dayal Vs. Chandrika Prasad
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All85
Mustaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal arising out of an application for execution of a mortgage decree. The decree was obtained by the appellant in 1929 against the respondent Chandrika Prasad and one Arya Muni. Execution was taken of this decree off and on, until the last application was dismissed on 28th July 1987. On 1st January 1938, the U. P. Temporary Stay of Execution of Decrees Act (X [10] of 1937) came into force and remained in force upto 31st December 1940. Claiming an exclusion of this period the appellant again applied for execution of his decree on 28th July 1943.2. Objections were taken to this application by the respondent on the ground that it was barred by limitation and also on the ground that the claim had already got discharged by reason of the decree-holder not proving his claim in certain proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act. Those proceedings had been taken by the respondent Chandrika Prasad only Arya Muni, the other judgment-debtor, being ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6733
- 6734
- 6735
- 6736
- 6737
- 6739
- 6740
- 6741
- 6742
- 6743
- Next ›
- Last »