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
Santosh Kumari Lalchand Mehra Vs. Chimanlal Munilal Kapur
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom307; (1950)52BOMLR394
ORDERBhagwati, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner, a minor by her next friend her father, against the respondent for a declaration that the marriage under the Special Marriage Act III [3] of 1872 alleged to have been solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 17th September 1948, is null and void and of no legal effect whatever.2. The petitioner and her father and the whole family came away from Amritsar to Bombay about a year and a half ago owing to the Hindu Muslim riots which took place there after the partition of India. They resided at Shivaji Park, Dadar, in a building by name Usha Nivas, and it was during this period that the incident which is complained about took place. The respondent was their neighbour at Amritsar. He had been employed in the shop of the petitioner's father and is alleged to have rendered them considerable aid in the evacuation of their property and persons from Amritsar when the riots took place. He appears to have renewed his acqu...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwant Kishore and anr. Vs. Bishambhar Nath and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All54
Seth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a claim put forward in insolvency proceedings. The insolvent is Madan Lal. The claimants are his sons, Bhagwant Kishore and Chandar Kishore. The claim relates to the offerings made at a shrine called Kuawala. A sum of Rs. 1300 was in the hands of a receiver in respect of the offerings for a particular period. It should be noted that the receiver was not the receiver in insolvency but was a receiver appointed in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P. C. The official receiver desired this amount to be paid to him claiming it to belong to the estate of the insolvent Madan Lal. Bhagwant Kishore and Chandar Kishore objected claiming that the offerings belonged to them. Both the Courts below have held that the offerings formed part of the estate of the insolvent and have, therefore, rejected the claim of Bhagwant Kishore and Chandar Kishore, who have come up in appeal to this Court.2. The brief history of the right to receive the offerings at the shr...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Sajida Khatoon Vs. M.B. Ahmad
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All56
Seth, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal under Section 6A, U. P. Court-fees Act, against an order of the Court below requiring her to pay an additional court-fee of Rs. 1087-8-0 on a sum of Rs. 13,200.2. The plaintiff appellant is the wife of the defendant. At the time of her marriage the defendant bound himself by an agreement to pay her maintenance allowance, which was described as 'kharch-i-pandan' in the agreement, in case the defendant married another wife during the plaintiff's lifetime. This maintenance allowance was to be paid at a rate which was to be half the amount of the salary payable to the defendant for the time being. The defendant a Government servant. The defendant remarried during the plaintiff's lifetime, and as a consequence of it, the plaintiff instituted the present suit claiming to recover a sum of RS. 23,000 as the balance of her dower, and Rs. 9,000 as the arrears of kharch-i-pandan, in all a sum of RS. 32,000 She paid ad valorem court-fee on this sum of Rs. 32...
Tag this Judgment!Rex Vs. AlimuddIn and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All77
Wanchoo, J.1. This is a revision by the Provincial Government against the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge of Banaras by which he dropped the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B, Penal Code against the five opposite parties and, instead, substituted a charge under Section 109, Penal Code.2. The facts which led to the prosecution of the opposite parties may be narrated here briefly. The Deputy Town Rationing Officer (Cloth), Banaras, Shri P. D. Dhoondiyal while inspecting the special permits cloth shop of one Ram Chander in Banaras city on 20th April 1946 discovered that a cloth permit No. 6996 issued from permit book No. 170 was forged inasmuch as the signature which purported to be his was not really in his handwriting. An enquiry then started for permit book no. 170 which had been in the custody of Jagdish Prasad opposite-party and it was found that it was missing from the office. It was also found that thirteen permits had been issued from this book which were all forged, b...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Behera Vs. Harikrishna Kantha
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori61
Narasimham, J.1. The defendant is the appellant in this appeal. The plaintiff purchased occupancy holding No. 83 in which is included sikmi plot No. 868 measuring 39 decimals in extent, from the recorded raiyat by a sale-deed dated 9th April 1945. The defendant was recorded as a Sikimidar of the plot and the plaintiff's suit was for ejectment of the Sikimidar under Section 57 (b), Orissa Tenancy Act, after service of the usual notice to quit. 2. The main defence taken by the defendant was that he was not liable to eviction because the disputed plot (868) was his homestead and that under the provisions of Section 236, Orissa 'Tenancy Act as recently amended by Orissa Act, X [10] of 1946 occupancy right had accrued to him in his homestead. The trial Court accepted this plea but the lower appellate Court held that the homestead of the appellant was limited to that portion of the disputed plot in which his dwelling house stood and that as regards the remaining portion of the plot the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Udipi Municipal Council Represented by Its Commissioner, T. Harichandr ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad222
K. Srinivasa Rao, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the Udipi Municipal Council whose suit for the recovery of Rs. 103-5-9 as arrears of property tax due from the three defendants has been dismissed by the Courts below. The tax is sought to be levied under Section 81(3), Madras District Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 6 acres and 88 cents of vacant land belonging to the defendants and situate within the limits of the municipality. The defendants, here respondents, resist the claim on the grounds that they should: have been assessed to property tax under Section 81 (i) of the Act and not under Section 81 (3) and they should have been separately and individually assessed on the share of the property held by each of them. Their contentions were accepted by the Courts below. It is unnecessary to set out Other defences which are not now material.2. The appellant urged two points before me: (i) the assessment in this case was rightly made under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!The Udipi Municipal Council, Represented by Its Commissioner, T. Haric ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ629
Viswanatha Sastri, J. 1. This second appeal has been preferred by the Udipi Municipal Council whose suit for the recovery of Rs. 103-5-9 as arrears of property tax due from the three defendants has been dismissed by the Courts below. The tax is sought to be levied under Section 81(3) of the Madras District Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 6 acres and 38 cents of vacant land belonging to the defendants and situate within the limits of the Municipality. The defendants, here respondents, resist the claim on the grounds that they should have been assessed to property tax under Section 81(4) of the Act and not under Section 81(3) and they should have been separately and individually assessed on the share of the property held by each of them. Their contentions were accepted by the Courts below. It is unnecessary to set out other defences which are not now material. 2. The appellant urged two points before me (i) the assessment in this case was rightly made under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Bajranglal Laduram Vs. Ganesh Commercial Co. Ltd
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal78,55CWN147
Harries, C.J.1. These are three connected appeals from an order & two decrees of Sinha J. By the said order Sinha J. dismissed two applns. to set aside awards made by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce & made two decrees in favour of the resps. in terms of the two awards.2. The parties to these three appeals entered into two contracts for the sale & put chase of certain jute materials. By contract no. 130 of 15-2-1946 the applts. agreed to sell to the resp. 3,60 000 B Twill gunny bags at Rs. 64-4 0 per hundred bags. Delivery was to be made by equal instalments in the months of July, August & September.3. By a second contract No. 131 of 16-2-1946 the applts. agreed to sell to the reaps. a similar quantity of B Twill gunny bags at Rs. 64-4-0 per hundred bags. The terms relating to delivery were similar to those in contract No. 130. Bach of these contracts contained an arbitration clause which is in these terms :'All matters, questions, disputes, differences &/or claims arising out of & or co...
Tag this Judgment!Sheodan Singh Vs. Ramesh Singh and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All53
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal by Sheodan Singh against the order of the Additional Civil Judge of Etah by which he affirmed the judgment and decree of the Additional Munsif of Etah, dismissing the suit brought by the plaintiff. The circumstances in which the suit was brought by Sheodan Singh were these:2. One, Lokan Singh, made a mortgage on 18th August 1928, for a sum of Rs. 100, in favour of Prithi Raj Singh. On 13th December 1928, another mortgage for Rs. 100 was executed by Tara Singh and others also in favour of the same Prithi Raj Singh. Later, on 9th November 1929, the mortgagors of both the mortgage deeds jointly executed a sale deed of the equity of redemption in favour of Sheodan Singh, the plaintiff appellant, and the defendant-respondents or their predecessors in interest. Prithi Raj Singh filed a suit against his mortgagors as well as the transferees, and got a decree on the basis of his mortgage deeds on 4th December 1933. Thereafter, Sheodan Singh made an application u...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal and ors. Vs. Gokaran Singh and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All87
Seth, J.1. This second appeal from order raises a question of law, which does not appear to be covered by any authority.2. Bhola Singh and his son, Hakim Singh, having mortgaged certain properties, sold the equity of redemption of a moiety share in one of the items of property to one Subedar Singh. Mohan Lal obtained a decree on the basis of the mortgage in the year 1932 against Bhola Singh and his son, Hakim Singh, without impleading Subedar Singh as a defendant. Bhola Singh and his two sons applied for relief under the Encumbered Estates Act in the year 1936, and Mohan Lal, having set up a claim in those proceedings, under the mortgage decree, obtained a fresh decree under the Act in the year 1939. Subedar Singh sold the property purchased by him from Bhola Singh to Gokaran Singh in the year 1940. In 1942 Gokaran Singh filed an objection under S. 11, claiming that the property purchased by him was not liable for the payment of the debts of the applicants under the Encumbered Estates ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6735
- 6736
- 6737
- 6738
- 6739
- 6741
- 6742
- 6743
- 6744
- 6745
- Next ›
- Last »