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
Gulab Singh Vs. Risal Singh and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All187
Malik, C.J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal. There was a mortgage dated 14th March 1925, in favour of Thakur Gulab Singh, the appellant. The mortgagee brought a Suit No. 622 of 1929 on the basis of his mortgage which was decreed on 31st March 1930. He executed his decree and sold the mortgaged property, but the decree not being satisfied a decree under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P. C. was passed on 12th August 1932. The decree was executed more than once after 1932 but the present application for execution was filed on 6th March 1943. An objection was taken on behalf of the judgment-debtor that the decree under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P. C. must be deemed to have been satisfied under Section 21, U. P. Debt Redemption Act (XIII [13] of 1940) and the decree was, therefore, not executable. The case of the decree-holder, however, was that the mortgage in his favour not being a first mortgage Section 21, Debt Redemption Act was not applicable. The decree-holder relied on the fact that there...
Tag this Judgment!Alfred Stanley Barrett Vs. Mrs. Kathleen Barrett
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All193
1. The petitioner Alfred Stanley Barett filed a petition under Section 10, Divorce Act for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, Mrs. Kathleen Barett, on the ground of her adultery with the co-respondent Lachhmi Chand Srivastava. It was stated that the parties were married on 19th August 1937, at the Catholic Church, Cawnpore, that they were domiciled in India and that both of them were Roman Catholic Christians. The petitioner alleged that he and his wife lived together happily till 1938 when he noticed a strange change in the behaviour of his wife and that she finally left him in October 1944 from Partabgarh where the petitioner was posted. The petitioner alleged that there was an exchange of love letters between his wife, the respondent, and the co-respondent; that his wife stayed at the Royal Hotel, Lucknow, with the co-respondent on 31st August 1943; that both of them stayed at the Hotel under the name of Mr. and Mrs. S. P. Singh; that the respondent and the co-responde...
Tag this Judgment!Brijpal Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Sarup
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All704
1. This appeal originally came up for heating before our learned brother Ghulam Hasan J. Having regard to the importance of the question raised, and to conflict of judicial opinion on the point, ha considered it desirable that it should be decided by a Bench. The matter has accordingly been referred to us.2. The material facts lie within a short compass.3. Ram Sarup, respondent l, obtained a simple money decree against Tejpal Singh. Subsequent to the passing of this decree, a partition was effected in Tejpal Singh's family consisting of himself and his three sons, Brijpal Singh, Jitendrapal Singh and Rajendrapal Singh, the present appellants. In execution of his decree Ram Sarup applied for bringing on record the names of the appellants (Tejpal Singh's sons) and sought to attach and sell the property allotted to the latter on partition. The sons preferred an objection under Section 47, Civil P. C. They contended that the property allotted to them was not liable to attachment and sale b...
Tag this Judgment!Thommi Anthoni and ors. Vs. Sirkar Prosecutor
Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1950Ker41; 1950CriLJ988
Koshi, J.1. These appeals arise out of the convictions and sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Quilon, on the five accused persons in Sessions case no. 36 of 1123 on the file of the Quilon Sessions Court. Each of them has filed a separate appeal. Thommi Anthoni, accused l has been convicted for the commission of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under part 2 of s, 303, Travaneore Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. His appeal is Criminal Appeal NO, 35. Anthoni Vastyan, accused 5 has been convicted of abetting the conviction of the above offence by accused l and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He has appealed in criminal Appeal No. 29. Augustine Yohannan, accused a has been convicted for. the commission of the offence of causing hurt with dangerous weapons punishable Under Section 324, Travanoore Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months, made ...
Tag this Judgment!Kutteer Vengayil Rayarappan Nayanar, Karnavan of Kutteer Vengayil Tarw ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad212
Horwill, J.1. The appellant was appointed a receiver in O. S. No. 28 of 1945. Upon a petition by some of the parties to the suit, who made certain allegations of maladministration, the appellant was removed from his receivership by the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry and two others were appointed in his stead. A preliminary point argued in the appeal is whether the appeal is maintainable.2. We have no doubt that the law in most High Courts, including this High Court, is that no appeal lies against an order removing a receiver. The matter came up directly for decision in C. M. A. No. 278 of 1914 before a Bench of this Court; and it was held that in the absence of any special provision in the Code for an appeal against an order removing a receiver, no appeal would lie. The learned Judges purported to follow Ramaswami Naidu v. Ayyalu Naidu, : (1924)46MLJ196 , although the question that came up for decision in that appeal was whether any appeal lay against an order refusing to remove a re...
Tag this Judgment!Nari Chinnabba Chetty Vs. E. Chengalroya Chetty and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad237
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This second appeal is against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, North Arcot, in A. S. No. 244 of 1946. The facts were briefly these. The appellants here had obtained a decree in O. S. No. 124 of 1942 against the respondents preventing the respondents from interfering with the appellants' right of way along the pathway marked KLM in the suit plan, so that appellants might take their cattle and ploughing materials along that pathway. These appellants put in E. A. No. 496 of 1946 in the District Munsif's Court, Vellore, the Court which had granted the decree, alleging that the respondents had ploughed up a portion of the pathway and included it in their adjacent land, had dug a pit on the pathway, and widened the existing well making an encroachment on the pathway, and thus made it impossible for any cattle to go along the pathway with safety, and for any persons to go along the pathway without care. The learned District Munsif gave these appellants a...
Tag this Judgment!Kuteer Vengayil Rayarappan Nayanar, Karnavan of Kuteer Vengayil Tarwad ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ599
Harwill, J.1. The appellant was appointed a receiver in O.S. No. 28 of 1945. Upon a petition by some of the parties to the suit, who made certain allegation of maladministration, the appellant was removed from his receivership by the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry and two others were appointed in his stead. A preliminary point argued in the appeal is whether the appeal is maintainable.2. We have no doubt that the law in most High Courts, including this High Court, is that no appeal lies against an order removing a receiver. The matter came up directly for decision in C.M.A. No. 278 of 1944 before a Bench of this Court; and it was held that in the absence of any special provision in the Code for an appeal against an order removing a receiver, no appeal would lie. The learned judges purported to follow Ramaswami Naidu v. Ayyalu Naidu (1923) 46 M.L.J. 196, although the question that came up for decision in that appeal was whether any appeal lay against an order refusing to remove a rece...
Tag this Judgment!Kakumanu Pattabhiramayya Vs. Mekala Mallareddi and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ747
Horwill, J.1. The appellant instituted a suit in a Village Munsiff's Court which had no jurisdiction; and a decree was passed. In execution, he sought to proceed against the property of the defendant. Various objections raised by the defendant to the execution of the decree were overruled and execution ordered to proceed. In appeal to the Court of Subordinate Judge, a question was taken as to the jurisdiction of the Village Court; and it was held that since the suit was instituted in a Court having no territorial jurisdiction, the decree was a nullity and could not therefore be executed. The appeal was therefore allowed and the execution petition dismissed.2. In revision, various contentions have been raised. The only argument pf sub-stance is that the lower appellate Court was wrong in holding that the decree was a nullity. The learned Subordinate Judge overlooked the provisions of Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, which says:No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowe...
Tag this Judgment!The Kandan Textile Ltd. Vs. the Industrial Tribunal I and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ789
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This application is made by the Kandan Textiles limited, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in the matter of the industrial dispute between the workers and the management of the Kandan Textiles, limited, before the Industrial Tribunal I, Madras and the award therein, dated 23rd May, 1949 and to quash the same.2. The applicant company is the proprietor of a small weaving mill located in 'iruvottiyur, Madras, employing (60 looms and about 200 workers. On 21st January, 1948, one R.M. Sundaram one of the workmen in the mill was dismissed by the management on the ground that he was responsible for the loss of a flexible shaft. He made attempts through the Labour Conciliation Officer to get himself re-instated but did not succeed in his attempt. On 23rd August, 1948, the boiler in the mills broke down and the mills were closed from 24th August, 1948, till nth October, 1948. On the intervention of the Labour Authorities, 14 days wages we...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Chandra Kabiraj and ors. Vs. Sankarsan Kabiraj and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal128
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal has to be allowed on the short ground that the suit is bad for misjoinder of the parties and of causes of action. This objection was raised by the defence in Courts below,2. The plaintiffs are co-sharer landlords and they filed the present suit against a large number of defendants who may be grouped under the following heads : defendants 1 to 16 were their co-sharers; Nos. 17 and 18 were two lawyers of the estate; Nos. 19 to 25 were officers, tahsildars, gomosthas and other employees of the estate ; No. 26 is alleged to have intermeddled with the property as on behalf of defendant 1; and Nos. 27 to 38 were other proprietors of different estates. The claim was one for accounts against all these persons.3. A reading of the plaint itself would at once show that the causes of action were different not only for the different groups but even for different persons within the same group in some cases. It is impossible to allow the plaintiffs to bring such a sui...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6746
- 6747
- 6748
- 6749
- 6750
- 6752
- 6753
- 6754
- 6755
- 6756
- Next ›
- Last »