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
Bishan Singh Vs. Ram Nagina Singh
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal77
ORDERSen, J.1. for Opposite Party. Order. -- This rule has been obtained by the petitioner who has been convicted by Sri R. C. Sen, Magistrate, First Class, Howrah, of having committed an offence punishable under Section 500, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. An appeal was taken to the Sessions Judge and it was dismissed. There-after this rule has been obtained.2. The facts briefly are as follows: The accused Bishan Singh went to a Grain Shop on a bicycle and leaving the bicycle outside he entered the Grain Shop. He borrowed the bicycle from one Mahadeo. When he came out be found the bicycle missing and was informed by some persons that a carpenter named Ram Nagina had taken the bicycle. Upon this in-formation being received, he went to his superior officer, B. N. Railway, at Shalimar, and inform-ed him of the incident. A document was written out and signed by Bishan Singh and it was taken to the Government...
Tag this Judgment!Ashutosh Bhadra and anr. Vs. Jatindra Mohan Seal and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1954Cal238
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Banerjee J, dated November 23, 1948, setting aside an abatement.2. The two plaintiffs brought a suit against Sm. Fuleswari Bhadra claiming a declaration that they had certain rights of light and air and an injunction restraining the defendant, her servants or agents from obstructing or interfering with these rights. There was also a claim for a declaration as to a right of way and an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with such right.3. The suit proceeded, but eventually it became known to the plaintiffs that Sm. Fuleswari Bhadra had died and the solicitors of the plaintiffs wrote to the defendant's solicitors asking them for information as to who were the personal representatives. No satisfactory reply was obtained, and eventually certain records were searched in this Court and it was discovered on August 23, 1948, that the lady had left a will naming Ashutosh Bhadra and Bejoy Kumar Bhadra as executors. They were th...
Tag this Judgment!Padam Kumar JaIn Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All132
ORDERHarish Chander, J.1. This is an application of one Padam Kumar Jain under Section 491, Criminal P. C., calling in question the legality of his detention in the District Jail at Agra by virtue of an order of detention passed by the U. P. Government under Section 3, U. P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act, 1947, on the ground that the grounds of detention furnished to him under Section 5 of that Act are vague and indefinite and are not sufficient to enable him to make a proper representation to the Government as contemplated by that section.2. In the case of Rex v. Durga Das, 1948 A. L. J. 491: (A. I. R. (36) 1949 ALL. 148), a Full Bench of this Court has held that where the ground and particulars supplied to the detenu under Section 5 of the Act are indefinite or incomplete and do not convey sufficient information to the detenu to enable him to make a representation that the detaining authority was wrong in its belief that his detention was necessary in the interest of th...
Tag this Judgment!Sheetal Baksh Singh and ors. Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All184
ORDERChandiramani, J.1. The three applicants Sheetla Baksh Singh, Nanhey Singh and Nanku were bound over Under Section 109 (a), Criminal P. C., by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sidhauli, district Sitapur, on 28th February 1949. Five other persons, Debi, Hulasi, Mulhey, Nafadin and Jagannath, were also bound over. All these eight persons went up in appeal, but their appeal was dismissed. Only the three applicants have come up in revision and stated that oil the facts proved the order Under Section 109 (a), Criminal P. C., is not justified. I have heard the learned counsel and am satisfied that the order passed is illegal.2. The prosecution case briefly was that the police of Sidhauli were informed by Ratnu chaukidar on 26th September 1948, that some 10 or 12 strangers had collected at the taina of Nasrullah Shah in village Bari and it was feared that some incident might take place. It was mentioned that these people were drunk. Sub-Inspector Amrit Singh accompanied by some constables a...
Tag this Judgment!Gamoji Venkata Ramakrishnarao Vs. Gullapalli Sambamurti
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad581
Horwill, J.1. The appellant filed a petition in the Court of the District Judge of East Godavari, the order on which is under appeal to scale down his debt under Section 19 of Madras Act IV [4] of 1938. Evidence was adduced; and after hearing arguments, the learned Judge framed three points as arising for determination on the allegations in the petition and counter and onthe evidence and arguments. They were: (i) Whether the petitioner is barred by principles of res judicata from preferring the petition (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Act IV [4] of 1938 and (3) What is the amount which will be due if the decree is scaled down? On the first point the learned District Judge decided in favour of the appellant. On the second point he held that the appellant was not possessed of any saleable interest in the property on the relevant dates, 1-10-1937 and 22-3-1938, and that he was, therefore, not entitled to the benefits of Act IV [4] of 1938. Because of this finding...
Tag this Judgment!Uday Chand Mahatab Vs. Dibakar Sen and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal134,54CWN307
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The only question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether in a suit for recovery of arrears of putni rent the provisions of Article110, Limitation Act or those of Article 2 of Schedule III, Bengal Tenancy Act will be attracted.2. The plaintiff filed the suit on the 15th April 1944 for the realisation of arrear putni rent due before the said putni was sold under the Putni Regulation on 1st Jaistha 1348 B. S.3. The defence was that a portion of the claim was barred by limitation as the plaintiff was entitled to claim arrears which had accrued due within three years of the filing of the suit. Both the Courts have disallowed the claim for the period antecedent to the Chaitra Kist of 1347 i. e. mid-April, 1941 holding that this suit is governed by Article110, Limitation Act. Hence this second appeal on behalf of the plaintiff.4. We shall consider in the first instance the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that Article2 of Schedule III, Bengal Tena...
Tag this Judgment!Bengal Central Bank Ltd. Vs. Bezon and Co. and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal299
Chatterjee, J.1. This suit was instituted for the recovery of a large sum of money and for the declaration of charge on certain Calcutta premises. The preliminary decree was passed on 27-7-1946. On 1-2-1949, on an application by the plaintiff, Sinha J. passed a final decree and directed that the property in question would not be sold in execution of the decree for six months. He further ordered that if the petitioner, who is defendant 2, paid a sum of Rs. 5000 within that period, the said property would not be sold for another six months.2. The petitioner states that owing to the reasons set forth in his petition, he could not pay the sum of Es. 5000 within the period mentioned in the decree. He says that defendant 1, who was his son-in-law and who was the real debtor, died in July 1949. He is negotiating with a party who is willing to advance Rs. 5000 on the security of his Calcutta property. Therefore he asks that the time fixed by the said decree or order dated 1-2-1949, for payment...
Tag this Judgment!Amarendra Lal Khan Vs. Ajodhya Khan
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal302
ORDERG.N. Das, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of the plaintiff against a decision of Mr. Chakladar, learned Small Cause Court Judge, Midnapore. The suit was one for recovery of rent in respect of a plot of land which is admittedly governed not by the Bengal Tenancy Act but by the Transfer of Property Act. The rent was claimed for the year 1350 to 1354 B. S. at the annual rate of Rs. 3-15-9. In the plaint the plaintiff stated that the rent was in respect of a fraction of C. S. Dag No. 536, Khatian No. 523. The defendant in his written statement did not dispute the amount of rent payable but disputed the extent of the tenancy. On that the learned Small Cause Court Judge forgetting the provisions of Article 11, Schedule 2, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act raised a point for determination as to the extent of the tenancy.2. In my opinion, the question of the extent of the tenancy was entirely outside the scope of the suit and should have been left open for adjudication b...
Tag this Judgment!Daulatia and anr. Vs. Jaiya
Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950HP36
ORDERBannerji, J. 1. This revision, which is directed against a judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Kasumpti, dated 29th April 1949, relates to the ownership of 14 biswas of land out of Khasra No. 4, Khata no. 7 of village Bagra (Theog), which is claimed, on the one hand, by the petitioners (Daulatia and Sita Ram) and on the other, by the opposite party, Jaiya, by whom the suit was commenced on 7th August 1947. 2. The dispute, which relates to ownership and possession of land, was properly cognizable by the Subordinate Judge of Theog. He dismissed the suit on 15th October 1948. On 20th November 1948, an appeal was taken to Shri Jagannath Bhagat, District Judge, Mahasu, under Section 31 (a), Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, 1948, which had come into force on 15th August 1948. By the said section, it was enacted that; 'Appeals from decrees of Courts exercising original jurisdiction shall lie, (a) from a decree of a Subordinate Judge in a suit of value not exceeding five ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jhaverilal Maganlal
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR991
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The prosecution alleged that the applicant before us carried on the business of a money lender without obtaining a license and without keeping and maintaining the accounts as required by the Bombay Money-lenders' Act XXXI of 1947. The contention of the accused was that he advanced moneys only on security and that he took security which was sufficient to cover the whole of the loan advanced by him to his customers, and the further contention of the accused was that the Money-lenders' Act only applied to cases where unsecured loans were made and not to cases where the loan advanced was a secured loan. The facts in this case are not in dispute, and the only question that arises, and the only question that has been argued, is the true interpretation of Act XXXI of 1947.2. What we have to decide is, what is the true meaning according to the language used of the expression 'loan' as defined by the Bombay Money-lenders' Act. 'Loan' is defined as an advance at interest by w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6744
- 6745
- 6746
- 6747
- 6748
- 6750
- 6751
- 6752
- 6753
- 6754
- Next ›
- Last »