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
H.K. Lodhi Vs. L. Shyam Lal
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All100
Agarwala, J.1. These are two applications in revision by one H.K. Lodhi against Shyam Lal. The facts briefly stated are these.2. The Political Agent in Bhopal issued two warrants on 8th February 1946 for the arrest of the opposite party and addressed one of them to the District Magistrate of Mathura and another to the District Magistrate of Agra. The warrants stated that the opposite party had committed or is supposed to have committed, within the limits of Bhopal, an offence against the laws of the said State and that the offence charged against the opposite party is one which, if committed in British India, would have constituted an offence under Section 420, Penal Code and that the opposite party should, therefore, be arrested under Section 7, Foreign Jurisdiction and Extradition Act, 1903, and removed to Bhopal to be deliver, ed to the Chief Justice, High Court, Bhopal. In pursuance of this warrant, the opposite party was arrested at Mathura on 24th September 1946. An application f...
Tag this Judgment!Hazura Singh Hari Singh Vs. the Crown
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1950P& H23; 1950CriLJ412
Harnam Singh, J.1. Hazura Singh, son of Han Singh, Jat Sikh of village Hebuwana, Tabsil Birsa, aged about 46 years, has been convicted Under Section 302, Penal Code, for the murder of Kheta Singh alias Kheta by firing at him with a pistol on 30th June 1948. Hazura Singh has bye0 sentenced to death. He appeals and the proceedings are before us under chap. 27, Criminal P.C. for the confirmation of the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant.2. The facts, so far as material are that Mfc. Ajmer Kaur, P.W. s, had married Jahangir Singh, brother of Hazura Singh convict by kerwea and she had given some land of Jahangir Singh to her father Kishan Singh for cultivation on batai, Hazura Singh, however, resented its and asserted his own claim upon which Mt. Ajmer Kaur filed a complaint Under Section 147, Penal Code. In that case Hazura Singh and Sarwan Singh were sentenced to sis months rigorous imprisonment and fine. Hazura Singh filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence and was o...
Tag this Judgment!Mehnga Buta Vs. the Crown
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1953P& H295
Kapur, J. 1. For the murder of Bhagtar chowki-dar, Mehnga appellant and Waryama, who has been acquitted, were tried for an offence under Section 302, Penal Code, and Mehnga was sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge of Jullundur. The convict has appealed to this court & the sentence of death is also before us for confirmation. 2. The occurrence is said to have taken place at about 8 P. M. on 3-4-1948 in front of the house of Waryama accused in Miranwali Gali of village Nag-gal Ambia, Tehsil Nakodar. The story of the prosecution is that three days before the occurrence the Tehsildar had come to the village and had directed the Lambardar, Kartar Singh (P. W. 9,) to arrange for the collection of land revenue. In pursuance of that order, which was given orally by the Tehsildar, the Lambardar Kartar Singh had directed Bhagtu Chowkidar to go and make a proclamation in the village that land revenue would be collected on the following day. When Bhagtu Chowkidar went into Miranwali Ga...
Tag this Judgment!Gyani Kartar Singh Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ771
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. This is an application in revision by Gyani Kartar Singh from the order of Mr. Abdul Kauf, Magistrate, 1st Glass, Ajmer, convicting him Under Section 19, Punjab Public Safety Act (li [2] of 1947) as made applicable to the Province of Ajmer. Merwara and sentencing him to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. His appeal before the Sessions Judge was dismissed, and he has now come up in revision before the Court.2. The facts of the case have been discussed at length in the judgments of the two Courts below, and need not be reiterated. The counsel for the applicant has raised two points before the Court firstly, that the Additional District Magistrate had no powers to have passed an order Under Section 4, Punjab Public Safety Act and secondly, that there is nothing on the record of the trial Court to justify the inference that he had attended a labour meeting.3. An order Under Section 4, Punjab Public Safety Act, as the very enactment stands, could be issued by...
Tag this Judgment!Chhoga and ors. Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ877
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. This is an application in revision by Chhoga and three ofcher3 from the order of Mr. D. N. Roy, Sessions Judge, Ajmer-Marwara, Ajmer, dated 3rd June 1949, in appeal maintain, ing their conviction under Section 19, Punjab Public Safety Act (n [2] of 1947) as made applicable to the Province of Ajmer-Merwara and reducing their sentences each to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Bs, 200.2. The case of the prosecution was that the applicants had been served by the District Magistrate with written notices Under section i, Punjab Public Safety Act prohibiting them from attending or taking part in any labour meeting or in any movement subversive of law and order and that they inspite thereof attended a labour meeting and also joined a procession, wherein slogans with a view to creating public disturbance and inciting labourers to action were shouted. The two Courts below relied on the prosecution version of the story, and held that the applicants had no...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Rajagopal Chettiar Vs. Razak Sahib Alias Abdur Razack
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad759
ORDERMack, J.1. The petitioner is a landlord who filed four suits for ejecting four tenants from huts built on a piece of vacant land in Washer, manpet. The tenants pleaded that they were entitled to protection under City Tenants Protection Act within one mouth of service of notice of the suit, filed petitions under Section 9, City Tenants Protection Act for an order that the landlord be directed to sell the laud to them for a price to be fixed by the Court in accordance with that section. The suits were dismissed as three months notice was not given under Section 11 of the Act upholding the contentions of the tenants that they were entitled to protection. At the time the suits were dismissed, the petitions of the tenants under Section 9 were pending. It was contended on behalf of the landlord that these petitions should have been merely dismissed as no order for ejectment had in fact been passed. The Registrar of the Small Causes Court has rightly in my opinion repelled this contentio...
Tag this Judgment!Govindanathan Vs. Anjaneya Pandithan and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad760
Mack, J.1. Petitioner is respondent 1 in a petition by the two plaintiffs for permission to sue in forma, pauperis. The petition was resist-ed on the ground that the contemplated suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge after finding that the would-be plaintiffs were paupers took the view that the suit was not bad for misjoinder and directed the plaint to be registered as a suit. No appearance hag been made by the respondents here despite personal service.2. The respondents are, the father, the would, be plaintiff 1 and his natural son, the would be plaintiff 2. They sued to recover the self acquired property of one Marimuthu Pandithar, who died in 1933, on the basis that he had adopted respondent 2 in 1925. Respondent 1 asks in the contemplated suits in the event of his natural son's adoption being negatived for recovery of possession on the ground that he is the nearest reversioner of a son Alanganathan, who was born to Mar...
Tag this Judgment!Jamuna Prosad Vs. Motilal Santhalia and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal63,54CWN182
G.N. Das, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29th March 1946 passed by Mr. P. P. I. Vaidyanathan, learned District Judge, Malda, affirming on appeal the judgment and decree dated 17th November 1944 passed by Mr. S. C Chakravarty, learned Subordinate Judge, Malda decreeing the plaintiff's suit.2. The plaintiff's case was that the disputed property appertained to 2 jamas held by the defendants under Sadek Reja. The latter instituted a suit for rent and recovered a decree. In execution of the decree, the property was put up to sale and was purchased by Charu Chandra Sarkar, pleader of the decree-holder on 26th March 1940, The judgment-debtor's application for setting aside the sale failed. The auction purchaser Charu Chandra Sarkar took possession through Court on 31th December 1940 and later sold the property to the plaintiff on 16th December 1942, The plaintiff having failed to get possession, instituted the present...
Tag this Judgment!Federation Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Hanutmal Boid
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal382,54CWN604
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Banerjee J. dated December 20, 1948, dismissing an application under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, XXXVIII [38] of 1948. The application was made by the appellants for an order that the decree in a suit for ejectment and rent made against them at the instance of the respondent and dated August 14, 1947, and all orders for execution made thereunder should be rescinded or varied on such terms and conditions as the Court might seem fit. There was also a prayer for an injunction restraining the respondent, his servants or agents from executing the said decree for possession.2. The facts giving rise to the litigation can be shortly stated as follows. The plaintiff-respondent was the owner of premises known as No. 10, Canning Street in the city of Calcutta. The petitioners, the Federation Bank of India, Ltd., were the tenants under the plaintiff in respect of part of the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Jivan Lal and anr. Vs. Shiam Lal and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All57
Wanchoo, J.1. This is a second appeal by Goswami Brij Jiwan Lal and another against the order of the Civil Judge of Mathura.2. The facts are that a suit was brought by Goswami Brij Jiwan Lal and another against Goswami Chagan Lal and others in 1933 in the Court of the Munsif of Mathura which was numbered as suit No. 319 of 1933. One of the plaintiffs of that suit died and no application was made, within ninety days of the death of the deceased plaintiff, to bring his heirs on the record. One of the defendants also died and in his case as well no application was made within the time allowed by law to bring his heirs on the record. Thereupon an application was made, on behalf of the main contesting defendants in the suit, pointing out that the suit had abated. The fact that one of the plaintiffs and one of the defendants had died more than ninety days before the application was made and that their heirs had not been brought on the record is not in dispute. The Munsif, after hearing both,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6737
- 6738
- 6739
- 6740
- 6741
- 6743
- 6744
- 6745
- 6746
- 6747
- Next ›
- Last »