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
Jhaverilal Maganlal Vs. Emperor
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom119
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 [311 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 [31] 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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Farid Ahmad and ors. Vs. Government of United Provinces
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All43
Malik, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal.2. The United Provinces Government filed a suit for possession of a piece of land described at the foot of the plaint, which, it is now admitted, is a part of a bigger plot No. 73 having an area of 3.73 acres and situate in Mohalla Naugaza in Muttra. The claim on behalf of the plaintiff is based on the ground that the land in suit had at one time vested in the Cantonment Board and on 23rd December 1881, the Cantonment Board had transferred this land along with other land to the civil authorities. Not much is known about the ancient history of this land except this that there are certain very old graves on this land, and at the time of the inspection the learned Civil Judge found one of the graves having an inscription of 11th century Hijri. There was a long grave on the spot known as 'Naugaza' and it is mentioned in one of the judgments that it was supposed to be the grave of one of the old giants in pre historic days who used to attain height...
Tag this Judgment!Manna Lal and ors. Vs. Ram Gopal and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All205
ORDERChandiramani, J.1. The opposite-parties filed a suit for recovery of possession of certain property alleging that the property had been mortgaged with the applicants and the entire money had been paid off from the usufruct of the property. The applicants raised an objection that the suit was not triable by the civil Court but it should have been filed before the revenue Court. This preliminary issue of jurisdiction was tried by the learned munsif, the trial Court, and be has come to the conclusion that he has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is against this decision that the applicants have now come up in revision.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no revision lies because that decision on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction does not amount to a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P. C. This contention is sound and is supported by the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Budhu Lal v. Mewa Ram, 43 ALL. 564: (A. I. R. (8) 1921 AL...
Tag this Judgment!Jeetmal S/O Manchharam Vs. State
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950MP21; 1950CriLJ745
Sanghi, J.1. The accused appellant Jeetmal s/o Manchharam has been convicted Under Section 307, Penal Code, and sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment and fine of RSection 100 by the Sessions Judge Dewas Junior Branch. He has, therefore, preferred this appeal.2. The short facts of the case are as follows: The accused Jeetmal and Sidnath are real brothers. They live in the village KLiaria near Sarangpur. Fifteen years ago Sidhanath went to reside with his uncle. Sidhanath returned to the village Kharia and filed a civil suit in the Court of the Munsiff Sarangpur for partition of the joint family property against his brother Jeetmal. A preliminary decree for partition was passed by the Munsiff in favour of Sidhanath a month prior to the incident. It appears that on 5th october 1948 a final decree was passed for partition of the joint family property. Half share in the house in the village Kharia was handed to Sidhanath. On 8th October 1948 at about 4 A. m. when Mamlekhan, a polic...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Dhapu Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ843
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. It is a petty 'marpit' case in which the applicant along with her relations is said to have thrown stones at the complainant. The applicant is & 'pardanaBhin' woman, and her presence during the course of the complainant's evidence on this ground was dispensed with by the trial Court Under Section 205, Criminal P.C. The trial Court subsequently directed the applicant to present herself in person so that her statement be recorded Under Section 245, Criminal P.C. The applicant has come up in revision from this order of the trial Court,3. The trial Court in its order has given no reasons to show as to why it thought it necessary to direct the applicant to appear in person for recording her statement Under Section 2-15, Criminal P.C. The pleader who was appearing for her could have easily been asked to make the statement. It has been held from time to time by the Court that the provisions of Section 206, Criminal P.C. should be liberally constru...
Tag this Judgment!Sripada Sambasiva Rao Vs. Kaki Venkatasuryanarayanamurthy and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad135
Mack, J.1. A rather novel point has been raised in this revision petition by the defendant who was sued for the recovery of Rs. 61-11.4. He admittedly signed an acknowledgment in an account book of the plaintiffs on 1st April 1945 showing that Rs. 54-3.6 was due on previous dealings. The point raised is a technical one, that this acknowledgment requires a one anna stamp under Schedule 1, Article 1, Stamp Act and that therefore it is inadmissible in evidence as an acknowledgment of liability which has the effect of saving limitation.2. The learned District Munsif has referred to some authorities and in my view rightly held that this signature was not an acknowledgment requiring any stamp. This was the opinion expressed in Nagappa Chetty v. V. A. A. R. Firm, : AIR1925Mad1215 by Krishnan J. though the point for determination did not directly fall for determination there.3. To bring the signature within the definition of an acknowledgment in the schedule, it is necessary that it should be ...
Tag this Judgment!Anumolu Tirupatirayolu (Died) and ors. Vs. Kaluri Venkata Subba Rao an ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad287
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder in O. S. No. 120 of 1931 against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Guntur scaling down the decree debt in a manner which the appellant considers to be unduly favourable to the judgment-debtor. 2. The point in dispute between the parties is a simple one. A promissory note was executed in renewal of two earlier promissory notes, Exs. P-1 and P -2, in which a further sum of Rs. 6000/- was advanced, making a total of Rs. 15000/- due by defendants l and 2 and one P. Prakasa Rao. On 12th March 1931 an arrangement was entered into between the creditor and the debtors whereby Prakasa Rao undertook half the liability under the note, which amount-ed to Rs. 9700/-, and for that amount he executed a mortgage bond in favour of the creditor. The defendants executed the suit promissory note for the Other Rs. 9700/-. The question arising in this appeal is whether we must regard the splitting up of the old debt on 12th Match 1931 as a c...
Tag this Judgment!Panchanan Das Vs. the King on the Complaint of Upendra Nath Samanta
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal80
ORDERSen, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of having committed an offence punishable under Section 448, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one mouth. Out of the fine, if paid, the complainant was to be awarded Rs. 150, as compensation. This order of conviction and sentence was passed by Sri B. Majumdar, Magistrate, Second Class, Howrah. An appeal by the petitioner to the Additional District Magistrate was dismissed. The petitioner has now obtained, this Rule.2. The facts alleged by the prosecution, are these. The complainant was a tenant of the accused petitioner in respect of a shop room at 8 Lal Behari Basu Lane and he used this room for the sale of straw. On 3rd Aswin the accused landlord came to the complainant and asked him to vacate the room temporarily as he wished to repair it. Believing in the statement the complainant on 4th Aswin removed his articles from the room and went away. He returned on 14th Aswin and...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Sarat Chandra Bose.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1950]18ITR669(Cal)
HARRIES, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The question propounded i : -'Whether in the facts and circumstance of this case relief under section 25(3) was allowed by the Tribunal.'To appreciate the point raised it will be necessary shortly to set out the facts. The assessee is and was a well known member of the Bar and an Advocate practising on the Original side of the Calcutta High Court. It is common ground that he was assessed to income-tax under the Act of 1918. On December 11, 1941, he was arrested at the instance of Government and was kept in detention until September 14, 1945, when he was released. During that period of course he was unable to carry on his practice as a Barrister and an Advocate and on his behalf it was said that Mr. Bose had given up all idea of practising in the future or, in short, had discontinued his practice. It is accepted by the Tribunal that Mr. Bose dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Farman Ali Khan Vs. Mohd. Raza Khan and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All62
Malik, C.J.1. this is a defendant's appeal against a decree passed by the learned District Judge of Allahabad in a suit filed under Section 92, Civil P. C. Mt. Musharraf Begum, widow of Arab All, and his daughter, Hatimi Begum, executed a deed of waqf on 12th October 1928. Farman Ali Khan, defendant-appellant, was appointed the mutwalli of the property. The income of the property made a waqf of, was said to be Rs. 2,450 out of which land revenue and Government dues had to be paid and Rs. 250 were fixed as the collection charges. A sum of Rs. 600 was set apart for expenses incurred during the Moharram and another sum of Rs. 600 during the month of Ramzan. Detailed instructions were given as to how the money was to be spent. Farman Ali and his two brothers, Waris AH and Abdul Hasan, and Abid Husain, a grandson of Arab Ali, were to get an allowance of Rs. 25 each per mensem.2. The plaintiffs, Yaqub Husain Khan and Mohammad Raza Khan, claimed that they be-longed to the Shia sect and were r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6745
- 6746
- 6747
- 6748
- 6749
- 6751
- 6752
- 6753
- 6754
- 6755
- Next ›
- Last »