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
S.S. Yusuf Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All69
ORDERKidwai, J.1. On 31st March 1948, an order was issued under Section 3(1) (a), U. P. Maintenance of Public Order Act for the detention of Shri Santa Singh Yusuf, a communist leader of Kanpur. He could not, however, be found till 28th May 1948, when he was arrested and incarcerated in the Naini Central prison at Allahabad. He moved an application under Section 491, Criminal P. C., and, by its order dated 24th September 1948, the Allahabad Bench of the High Court held the detention to be illegal and directed the petitioner's release.2. The petitioner was actually released from confinement on 29th September 1948, but on the same day, on coming out of jail, an order under Section 3 (1) (b), (c) and (f) was served upon him prohibiting his entry into certain districts and directing him to proceed along a particular route and by a particular train to Sitapur where he was to remain within the confines of the Municipality and was to report himself to the Deputy Commissioner, or his nominee, ...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Bali and ors. Vs. Rang Bahadur Singh and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All88
ORDERSeth, J.1. The mortgagor did not pay the amount as required by the preliminary decree, nor did the mortgagees apply for a final decree and the matter rested at that.2. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the right of the plaintiffs to redeem had been extinguished by the preliminary decree mentioned above, that the claim for redemption was barred by res judicata that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the mortgage set up by them, and that the claim was barred by limitation. It left other issues undetermined. The lower appellate Court held that the earlier preliminary decree dated 7th September 1907, did not extinguish the right of redemption, that the defendants had failed to prove that the mortgage was more than 60 years' old and that, therefore, the claim was barred by limitation. It, therefore, set aside the decree of the trial Court and having decided the remaining issues in the case passed a decree for redemption without any payment.3. It is contended on behalf of...
Tag this Judgment!Lachmi Lal and anr. Vs. Babu NaraIn Das and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All152
Malik, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal against a decree passed by the learned Civil Judge of Banaras in a suit for recovery of money due on two sarkhats. On 29th December 1931, the defendants had borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,000/-from the plaintiffs on the basis of a sarkhat, carrying interest at 10 annas per cent. per mensem. The interest was regularly paid and Rs. 3,900/- was paid towards the principal, with the result that on 25th September 1940, the amount that had remained due under this sarkhat was only Rs. 2,100/-. On 1st July 1932 a second sarkhat had been executed for Rs. 4,000/-and the amount was payable with interest at 10 annas per cent. per mensem. Interest on this sarkhat was also paid regularly on the due dates, but nothing was paid towards the principal and on 1st October 1940, Rs. 4,000/- had remained due to the creditors. On 26th September 1940, and 1st October 1940, fresh sarkhats were executed by the defendants for Rs. 2,100/- and Rs. 4,000/- the amounts due under th...
Tag this Judgment!Salma Bi Vs. Mohammed Ebrahim Sahib
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad151
Mack, J.1. The petition raises an interesting question of the scope of Section 132, Civil P. C., and the extent to which purdanashin ladies and in particular Muslim ladies are exempt from personal appearance in Court. The learned District Munsif of Tanjore, Sri S. Natarajan, dismissed a petition by one Salma Bi who filed a suit in which she prayed for the divorce of her husband under Act IX [9] of 1939, for the examination of herself and some of her witnesses who like her were stated to be gosha ladies on commission. The District Munsif observed that every allegation which can possibly be put forth in a suit for divorce had been set forth in the plaint. The cogent reason he gave for dismissing the petition was that the Court would lose the valuable opportunity of personally hearing the evidence of the plaintiff and hen witnesses and watching their demeanour. The respondent who is the husband sought to be divorced makes no appearance on this petition.2. The learned advocate for the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Nishtala Subramanya Somayajulu Vs. Kannepalli Lakshmi Somi Devi
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad210
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The appellant is the brother of the respondent. Both of them are the children of one Anandaraya Sastry, who was a Sub-Inspector of Police and a subscriber to the General Provident Fund. He nominated his wife, Satyavathamma, to receive the amount standing to his credit in the Provident Fund in the event of his dying before the money was paid over to him, but Satyavathamma predeceased him. She died in August 1938, while Anandaraya Sastry survived till 8th March 1946. The appellant applied for a succession certificate in the Court of the District Judge of Vizagapatam. The respondent who is his sister opposed the application claiming that she was entitled to the money. The learned 'Judge dismissed the application of the appellant and directed that a succession certificate should be issued in favour of the respondent. Hence this appeal2. Note 2 to R. 17 of the Rules regulating the General Provident Fund as they stood in 1926 provided :'When a person named in a Form o...
Tag this Judgment!Nishtala Subrahmanya Somayajulu Vs. Kannepalli Lakshmi Somi Devi
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ635
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The appellant is the brother of the respondent. Both of them are the children of one Anandaraya Sastri, who was a Sub-Inspector of Police and a subscriber to the General Provident Fund. He nominated his wife, Satyavathamma, to receive the amount standing to his credit in the provident fund in the event of his dying before the money was paid over to him; but Satyavathamma predeceased him. She died in August, 1938, while Anandaraya Sastri survived till 8th March, 1946. The appellant applied for a succession certificate in the Court of the District Judge of Vizagapatam. The respondent who is his sister opposed the application claiming that she was entitled to the money. The learned Judge dismissed the application of the appellant and directed that a succession certificate should be issued in favour of the respondent. Hence this appeal.2. Note 2 to Rule 17 of the rules regulating the General Provident Fund as they stood in 1926 provided,when a person named in a Form...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. K. Sinnappa and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad767
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the accused in 45 cases tried by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Alur.2. Forty-five cases were put up against 45 different accused for offences under the Prohibition Act. On 15th November 1947 there was a general raid by the officers of the Prohibition party as a result of which the several accused were put up for trial. The Magistrate tried these cases separately but at the defence stage clubbed them all together and finally acquitted them.3. It is contended by the Public Prosecutor that the clubbing together at the defence stage is illegal and on that main ground seeks to set aside the order of acquittal. The Magistrate should have made up his mind whether to try them all together or not before the commencement of the cases. Not having done so then it is not open to club these cases after the evidence of the witnesses were (sic) recorded and at the defence stage. The order of acquittal is therefore ...
Tag this Judgment!Mritunjoy Das Vs. Sm. Sabitrimoni Dasi
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal59
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. Defendant 2 is the appellant in this Court and this appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of contract. The plaintiff's case was that Uttar Manikpur Hitakari Bank, which is represented in these proceedings through its Secretary, had agreed to sell certain lands to the plaintiff under certain conditions. That offer was accepted but the Bank did not accept the amount and the property was sold by the Bank to defendant 1. Hence the suit for specific performance.2. Defendant 1, the subsequent transferee from the Bank, filed a written statement denying all allegations of collusion with the Bank or its officers and further pleaded that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the alleged previous contract with the plaintiff. Defendant 2 filed a separate written statement alleging that the plaintiff did not fulfil her part of the contract, time was of the essence of the contract, and denying all the other allegations made about collusion and o...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Daruwala and anr. Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ864
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. This is an accused's application for transfer of the case pending against them from Ajmer to Beawar. The application has been made mainly on the ground of convenience to the parties.2. It is an admitted fact that the applicants have not approached the District Magistrate in the matter first. When a remedy was open to the applicants in a lower Court there was no reason as to why they should have come up straightway before the higher Court, If there were any special reasons that prompted the applicants not to go to lower Court first, then they should have given those reasons. It has been held time after time by different High Courts that before an application is made to the High Court for transfer of a case the District Magistrate must be moved first. The High Court would not ordinarily entertain an application for transfer when the applicant could under the law have moved the District Court for the same relief and has not done be. The High Court would interfere ...
Tag this Judgment!K.M.S. Kumarappa Chettiar Vs. the Official Receiver
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad216
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This is an appeal against the refusal of leave to file a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a single Judge in second appeal. The appellant was the respondent in C. M. S. A. No. 31 of 1946 which was board by Satyanarayana Rao J. The appeal was allowed and on the motion of the counsel who appeared for the appellant herein for leave to file a Letters Patent Appeal against his judgment leave was refused. As against the refusal, this appeal is now filed. Notice of this appeal was ordered to the respondent and to the President of the Madras Advocates Association probably, for the reason that this involves a matter of interest to the legal profession and the litigant public. An objection is taken that no appeal lies against the refusal of leave by the second appellate Judge. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that he is entitled to file an appeal as this is an appeal against the judgment of a single Judge under Clause 15, Letters Patent and the o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6739
- 6740
- 6741
- 6742
- 6743
- 6745
- 6746
- 6747
- 6748
- 6749
- Next ›
- Last »