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
Mst. Lakshmi Devi Vs. Mt. Tara Bai and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All104
Kidwai, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant for a declaration that a motor lorry which had been: attached in pursuance of their decree by respondents 1, 5 (now dead and represented by respondent 1) and 6 did not belong to her husband, Thakur Sat Parsan Singh taluqdar of Resi, respondent 2, but that it belonged to her. She had filed objections under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C., but they were dismissed and consequently a suit for declaration was brought. The learned Munsif, in whose Court the case was instituted, dismissed the suit. The learned Civil Judge of Sultanpur held the appeal filed in his Court to be time barred and dismissed it, This appeal is from the decree of the learned Civil Judge dismissing the appeal as times barred.2. The circumstances relating to the filing of the appeal in the Court of the District Judge of Sultanpur are that limitation was expiring on 5th September 1942. The appeal was not filed in, Court on that date but at 9 p. m. t...
Tag this Judgment!Anangabhusan Vs. Ghanashyam Patro and anr.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori349
Ray, C.J.1. This is revn. directed against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Puri disappearing the pltf. under Order 38, Rule 9, Civil P. C. The pltf. admittedly is a member of a Hindu Mitakahara Joint family & his father is one of the defts. in the suit. The suit is for setting aside certain alienations, made by his father & for recovery of the properties so alienated. The attack on those alienations is based upon immorality & illegality of the transactions. The pltf. applied for leave to sue in forma paupris. Of his appln. due notices were given to the Crown as well as the defts. opposite party. They filed their objections challenging the plea of pauperism but none of the contesting parties appeared at the date when the matter was heard by the Ct. The Ct. purporting to act under Order 33, Rule 7 granted the pltf. leave to sue as a pauper on which his appln. for leave was registered as a suit & was to proceed, as such, in the ordinary way except that he should be exempted fr...
Tag this Judgment!Koka Bhaskara Rao and ors. Vs. Tayi Hemalatamma and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad150
Horwili, J.1. In a court sale two persons bid jointly, and the sale was knocked down in their joint names. The judgment-debtors then filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90 to have the sale set aside on various grounds, and impleaded only one of the joint bidders. The Court dismissed the application on the ground that only one of the joint bidders had been impleaded.2. Mr. Kameswara Rao for the respondent agrees with the learned counsel for the appellants that the order of the learned District Judge cannot be sustained on that ground, The proviso to Order 21, Rule 92 (2) is to the effect that no order setting aside a sale shall be made unless notice of the application has been given to all persons affected thereby. It would follow from this that in a proper case a sale can be set aside it notice goes to all the persons affected, and that it is unnecessary under this proviso that all the persons affected should be formally impleaded. So it is clear that the learned District Judge's...
Tag this Judgment!N. Muhammad UssaIn Sahib and anr. Vs. S.N. Abdul Gaffoor Sahib and ors ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad758
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings for passing of a final decree in a partnership action. The partnership in dispute was commenced on 1st January 1937 under an agreement between three partners, one N. Abdul Wahab now represented by defendants 1 to 8, Abdul Wahab, defendant 9 and Abdul Gafoor, respondent 1-plaintiff. A period of ten years was fixed as the duration of the partnership. Under the provisions of the agreement the two Wshabs had contributed the capital and Gaffoor was only the working partner. The articles of partnership also provide for annual settlement of accounts and the method of settling those accounts. The settlement proceeds on the basis of the book value of the assets and not on the real value. On 5th December 1942, N. Abdul Wahab died which brought about the dissolution of the partnership. The plaintiff Gaffoor instituted the action, out of which this appeal arises for taking accounts of the dissolved partnership from 1st January 1937, the...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkishor Mohanty and anr. Vs. Banabehari Patnaik and ors.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori291
Panigrahi, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell a plot of homestead land bearing plot No. 1051 within Jemmabandi 98 of Cuttack Khasamahal. Four annas share in the suit plot belonged to Raikriahna Mohanty, deft. 2 & the rest belonged to applt. 1, Rajakishor Mohanty. Deft. 2 also owned in his own right the adjoining plot of land bearing No. 1052 within Jammabandi 9T. Deft. 2 wanted to sell plot No. 1052 applied to the Khasamahal authorities for permission to sell. Among the objectors were deft. 1 (Dr. Banabehari Patnaik), pltf. 2 (Sachidananda Mohanty) son of pltf. 1 & some other persons. The Khasamahal enquiry was posted to 6-4-1941 when deft. 2 filed Ex. 5, which is a petn. of compromise alleged to have been arrived at between the parties. The main clauses of this compromise are that pltf. 2, Sachidananda should withdraw his objection to the sale of plot No. 1052 & allow deft. 1 to purchase it from deft. 2 and that deft. 2 should sell to ...
Tag this Judgment!Hadibandhu Misra Vs. King
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori245
ORDERRay, C.J. 1. The petition is by the complainant. He feels aggrieved by the order of the trying Magistrate (Shri S. S. Roy) refusing to examine some more witnesses for the prosecution at the stage of the trial where Section 256, Criminal P. C., came into operation. 2. The facts are that after a long and chequered career, the criminal case started by the petitioner, came to the file of Sri S. S. Roy for disposal. On the date, he received the file, he asked the complainant (petitioner) to produce his witnesses on the following date, on the said date, that is 19th August 1948, the complainant could not be present in Court and an application for excusing his absence was filed. At his instance, the case was adjourned, but the complainant was required to file a list of witnesses within two days. Thereupon, three witnesses were summoned for the prosecution and were present in Court on the next date. They were examined and (partially) cross-examined before the charge was framed. After char...
Tag this Judgment!Ketaki Ranjan Banerjee and ors. Vs. Bipradas Mukherjee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal325
Guha, J. 1. This rule at the instance of judgment-debtors is directed against certain orders passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Asansol in Title Execution Case No. 43 of 1948 arising out of Money Suit No. 30 of 1944 brought by the plaintiff opposite party for recovery of Rs. 29,996-10-6 and for certain other reliefs. That suit was decreed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Asansol in part for Rs. 26,666-8-3 with proportionate costs and also for half the share of the profits of the 'Master Engineering Concern' a partnership business. An appeal (Appeal from Original Decree No. 334 of 1947) against that decree preferred by the present petitioners is pending in this Court. After the filing of that appeal, the judgment-debtors-petitioners filed an application in this Court for stay of the execution of the decree on the grounds inter alia that the plaintiff-opposite party was in embarrassed circumstances and an order was passed on 27th February 1948, by this Co...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bank of India Vs. L. Narendrapal
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All52
ORDERSeth, J.1. This is a defendant's application arising out of a suit under Section 5 (4), U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, III [3] of 1947. The premises were let to the defendant Bank by a registered lease some time in the year 1943 at a rent of Rs. 100 per month. The plaintiff claimed that the municipal assessment of the premises, on the relevant date in the year 1942, was Rs. 106-1-0 and that the reasonable rent therefore came to an amount in the neighbourhood of RS. 133. He alleged that even this was an inadequate rent and brought a suit under Section 6 of the Act for fixation of the rent at the rate of Rs. 200 a month. The suit was thus in effect a suit for enhancement on the ground that the reasonable rent was inadequate. It may be pointed out that before the institution of the suit the plaintiff had given a notice to the defendant enhancing rent to Rs. 200.2. The Court below has fixed the rent at Rs. 132-9-S per month, which is .the reasonable rent according t...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Inspector of Stamps Vs. Brij Raj Singh
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All55
ORDERSeth, J.1. This is a revision by the Chief Inspector of Stamps under Section 6B, Court Fees Act. A suit was brought for maintenance by a widow (sic) under forma pauperis and no court-fee was paid. The defendant husband appealed to the lower appellate Court. He paid court-fee on the amount payable for one year to the plaintiff in accordance with the proviso to Section 7(ii)(a). The Stamp authorities objected to this amount of court fee and claimed that court, fee was payable upon ten times that amount, their contention being that the proviso was not applicable when the appeal was filed by a male person. There is no separate provision for the assessment of court-fee payable in appeals arising out of such suits as distinct from the article providing for the payment of court-fees in the suit in such cases. There is, however, Section 2(iv) according to which 'suit' includes a first or second appeal from a decree in a suit. Applying the aforesaid definition of suit, if we substitute 'fi...
Tag this Judgment!Shafiq-ud-dIn Vs. Lakhan Singh and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All60
ORDERSeth, J.1. This is an application in revision against an appellate order arising out of a case under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act. The Court of first instance granted the application for redemption. The appellate Court has agreed with the Court of first instance on almost every point except on the question of limitation and having found that the application was barred by limitation has dismissed it. The plaintiff-applicant applies in revision against the order of the lower appellate Court.2. The argument put forward by the learned counsel before me is different from the argument that was put forward before the lower appellate Court, In the lower appellate Court it was argued that limitation was saved by a certain acknowledgment made by a Hindu widow. The defendants are the reversioners. The lower appellate Court overruled this contention on the authority of the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee reported in Soni Ram v. Kanhaiya Lal, 35 ALL. 227 : ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6736
- 6737
- 6738
- 6739
- 6740
- 6742
- 6743
- 6744
- 6745
- 6746
- Next ›
- Last »