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
Jwarmal Shivanath Malu Vs. Haji Ibrahim Kassam Uplitwala, Firm by Mukt ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad768
Mack, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant, a merchant of Tasgaon in Bombay Province. The plaintiff in the suit does business in Calicut and ordered a quantity of 'New Chillies Chatni beat, dried, thin red' after approval by sample from the defendant. The contract was admittedly on8 known as C. I. F. and F. O. R. Tasgaon. On the arrival of chillies in Calicut, the plaintiff according to his plaint allegations, found on examination that the chillies were of inferior quality and not according to sample. He had a survey made by the Chamber of Commerce of Calicut whose report, he said, would bear out his allegations. After notification to the defendant, who made no response, the chillies were sold at the risk of the defendant. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 2900-4-0 by a hundi to the defendant before the goods were despatched. The suit was filed in the District Munsif's Court of Calicut to recover a loss of about Rs. 1500/-. The District Munsif of Calicut held that he had no jurisdiction as th...
Tag this Judgment!Jatindra Mohan Das Vs. Khitipathinath Mitra and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal82,54CWN284
K.C. Chunder, J.1. The rule was issued on the application of the petitioner who was a sublessee of premises No. 81 Pataldanga Street, Calcutta. Opposite party No. 2 was the lessee and Opposite party No 1 was the landlord. On 4th August 1947 the landlord gave a notice to his tenant opposite party No. 2 to quit by the last date of August 1947. As the premises were not vacated and peaceful possession delivered the landlord on 10th October 1947 brought a suit in ejectment at the Calcutta Court of Small Causes being Suit No. 5772 of 1947. The suit was decreed on 8th March 1948 by consent whereby the tenant agreed to vacate by 9th September 1948. Opposite party No. 2 brought a suit in the Original Side of this Court being Suit No 3079 of 1948 for a declaration that the ejectment decree was null and void. In that suit by consent it was ordered in September 1948 that opposite party No. 2, the tenant, was to give up vacant possession on 31st January 3949. It is said that opposite party No. 2 ha...
Tag this Judgment!Gurupadappa Shivlingappa Vs. Akbar Sayad Budan Kadri
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom252; (1950)52BOMLR143
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff filed a salt, being suit No. 272 of 1946, in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Belgaum, seeking to obtain possession of certain premises from the defendant on the allegation that the defendant was a tenant and that the tenancy was duly terminated by notice.2. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that he was an annual tenant and the tenancy was not duly terminated. Daring the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a compromise, the terms of which are as follows:'(1) The defendant admits that he is the monthly tenant of the plaintiff, The defendant do deliver up possession of the suit property to the plaintiff before 31st January 1948.(2) The defendant has paid the rent up to the end of March 1947 to the plaintiff. The defendant do forthwith pay the amount of rent remaining due up to this day and he do pay to the plaintiff rent of each month up to 31st January 1918, in advance on the first day of each of the several months.'This...
Tag this Judgment!Jaikrishna Vs. Crown and anr.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom99; 1950CriLJ607
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicant Jaikrishna of Anjan-gaon was convicted and sentenced to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment under B. 406, Penal Code by the Second Class Magistrate, Daryapur; and in appeal the appellate Magistrate, Amraoti, affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to a fine of bb. 600. The applicant has now come up in revision to this Court.2. Although the complainant Mohanlal (P.W. 1) claimed that the applicant was hia servant and in that capacity used to sell, buy or pawn gold and silver in Amraoti and elsewhere in bis behalf, the trial Court found that they were partners. The trial Court also found that the applicant bad misappropriated the following : (i) Rs. 300 on 10th September 1946, (ii) Rs. 642 on 8th October 1945. (iii) Rs. 400 and BSection 1662 on 19th January 1946, (iv) a gold kardora worth Rs. 600 on 7 th October 1945.3. The appellate Magistrate found in his own words and figures:It h thus clear that the appellant misappropriated the kardora I...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Ram Dei Vs. Mt. Gyorsi and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All76
1. The answer of the Full Bench is to the effect that the self, acquired property of a Hindu father which his sons, who were joint with him, got on his death is in their hands joint family property and as between the sons and their descendants it is subject to all the incidents of a coparcenary. In our order of reference dated 12th April 1948, we held that Mt. Ram Dei defendant, had neither a right of residence nor the right of maintenance in the property which was the subject-matter of transfer by Ram Kumar to plaintiffs 1 and 2. This appeal must, therefore, fail on both the grounds urged before the Bench at the time of the hearring in 1943.2. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, now seeks further to challenge the sale made by Ram Kumar in 1940 in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 on the ground that it was not supported by legal necessity or by any antecedent debt. We are somewhat disinclined to permit fresh contentions being raised at this stage of the case. We prefer, however,...
Tag this Judgment!H. C. D. Mathur, Secy. of the National Federation of Railway Vs. E.i. ...
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All80
ORDER1. One Fazal Husain, a railway employee, was retrenched in 1931, but in 1911 the Railway Board re-instated him. He was, however, given a lower grade-- that of permanent way mistry and posted to Sitapur.2. On 21st September 1943, Mr. Mathur, General-Secretary o the National Federation of Railwaymen, an unregistered union, with the written consent of Fazal Husain, applied under Section 15(2), Payment of Wages Act, to the authority appointed under that Act for the Sitapur area, for permission to present an application and to act on behalf of Fazal Husain in a matter of a so-called deduction in his wages.3. Mr. R. B. Pradhan, who was then performing the functions of the authority, by his order of the same date, granted the necessary permission, whereupon Mr. Mathur immediately presented an application, on behlaf of Fazal Husain, under Section 15(3) of the Act. In this application it was claimed that a sum of Rs. 252-11-0 had been wrongly deducted from the salary of Fazal Husain for va...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Thakurji Mahraj Thakur Dwara Vs. Jangoo Singh and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All105
ORDERChandiramani, J.1. This application arises out of the appellate decree of Mr. Ekbal Hussain, Civil Judge, Hardoi, dated 18th September 1944.2. The opposite parties applied under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act for redemption of a mortgage executed by their predecessor-in-interest in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant. This mortgage was executed in 1908 for Rs. 1900 and possession was given to the mortgagee in 1909. The opposite parties alleging that the mortgagee in possession had been paid off entirely by the usufruct of the property, sought to redeem it without paying anything. The only question in dispute was the amount of realisation made by the mortgagee while in possession right upto the date of the application. The trial Court came to the conclusion that Rs. 1243-1-0 were due. The mortgagors went up in appeal and urged that in certain specified years the income actually derived by the mortgagee was Rs. 156 a year and not the amount shown in the mo...
Tag this Judgment!Jagat Singh Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ1060
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. These are two connected applications in revision, being Criminal Revns. nos. 6 and 28 of 1949, by Mirehu Mai and Jagat Singh respectively from the order of Mr. 8. A. Eauf, 'Magistrate 1st Class?, dated 20th August 1949, convicting them Under Section 8 of Central Act xxiv [24] of 1346 and sentencing them each to pay a fine of Ha. 50 or in default to undergo three weeks' rigorous imprisonment and further directing one third of their foodgrains to be forfeited ; to the Grown. The applicants filed applications In revision before the Sessions Judge, and the applications were rejected. They have now come up in revision before the Court.2. The case of the prosecution was that the applicants attempted to export from the City of Ajmer Beawar of controlled foodgrains without a permit on the night between 2nd and 3rd April 1948 and were caught hold of at the Ajmer.Beawar Road Octroi Outpost. The applicants in their statements before the trial Court admitted the allegation...
Tag this Judgment!Hare Krishna Rana and ors. Vs. Sm. Jamini Sundari Dassi and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal555
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. In this appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs, the particular question which arises for decision is whether, under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P. C., dispossession referred to therein must be in course of the execution proceedings or may be a subsequent event.2. The plaintiffs brought the present suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration of their eight annas share in a particular sub-tenure held by them under the Patnidar. The plaintiffs' predecessor Gostha and pro forma defendant 5 Kedar after purchasing the eight annas share in the Patni sued Satish Adhikary who was then the owner of the sub-tenure in suit. That suit was decreed and in execution of this decree Gostha and Kedar became the auction-purchasers, the sale having taken place on 15th February 1924, and possession was delivered on 24th May 1924. The plaintiff a claimed in the pre-sent proceedings as the heirs of Gostha. Kedar who was the owner of the remaining eight annas share of the sub-tenure h...
Tag this Judgment!Adeline Maude Ellanor Catchick Nee Robertson and anr. Vs. Sunderlal Da ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal559
G.N. Das, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decision of Mr. B. Mookerjee, Additional Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore, District 24 Parganas, dated 29th November 1944, dismissing their suit for possession and mesne profits.2. The plaintiffs' case is that the disputed property and other properties belonged to their father George Adolphus, Robertson. The letter was at all material times, living separate from his wife Olivia by whom he had several children. He had by one Mrs. Adeline Maude Bredee, a widow, two daughters viz., the plaintiffs.3. On 4th July 1892, Mr. Robertson executed a will. The will inter alia provided that Mrs. Bredee would be entitled to the disputed property for her life and the remainder would go to the plaintiffs. Mrs. Bredee and the testator's two brothers William Cecil Robertson and Edwin Robertson were appointed executors.4. On 12th January 1894, a son named George Nathaniel Robertson was born of Mrs. Bredee by the testator.5. On 11th June 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6741
- 6742
- 6743
- 6744
- 6745
- 6747
- 6748
- 6749
- 6750
- 6751
- Next ›
- Last »