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
Jhajharia Brothers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal570,[1950]18ITR126(Cal)
Chatterjee, J.1. The question referred to this Court by the appellate tribunal is as follows :'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal was right in holding that the non-compliance by the assessee with the provision of Section 12A disentitled him from claiming the deduction of Rs. 32,685 in question and is assessable under the provision of Section 10 of the same Act.'2. The applicant is the managing agent of Radha Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd. Its income is mainly from the managing agency commission which it received from the mill. The Radha Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd., was loated by a number of persons: Radha Krishna Jajharia who was karta of a joint Hindu family, Gobardhandas the Shroff and Joy Doyal Kasaria. It is stated that there was an agreement between these parties to share the managing agency commission payable by the Radha Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd. Later on, both Joy Doyal and Gobardhandas assigned their respective shares of the managing agency commission to Bha...
Tag this Judgment!The Kandan Textile Ltd. Vs. the Industrial Tribunal (1) and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad616; (1949)NULLLLJ875Mad
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This application is made by the Kandan Textiles Ltd., 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 Ltd., before the Industrial Tribunal 1, Madras and the award therein dated 23-5-1949 and to quash the same.2. The applicant company is the proprietor of a small weaving mill located in Tiruvottiyur, Madras, employing 60 looms and about 200 workers. On 21-1-1948, 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 reinstated but did not succeed in his attempt. On 23-8-1948 the boiler in the mills broke down and the mills were closed from 24-8-1948 till 11-10-1948. On the intervention of the Labour Authorities, 14 days' wages were paid to practically all the workers. On 12-10-1948 the...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Rammohanrai Jaswantrai Desai and ors. Vs. Somabhai Nathabhai Pate ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom161; (1950)52BOMLR97
Chainani, J.1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiffs under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the decision of Gajendragadkar J., dismissing the appeal which the plaintiffs had brought against the decision of the Assistant Judge, Broach and Panch Mahals, by which he confirmed the trial Court's order rejecting the claim made by the plaintiffs for possession of survey No. 174. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovering possession of survey No. 174, as well as three other lands, survey NOS. 32, 45 and 60/6 from the defendants. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendants were their annual tenants. Survey no. 174 measures 9 acres and 14 gunthas or 16 3/4 bighas of land. Fourteen and three-fourths bighas out of this land were the subject-matter of litigation between the plaintiffs' ancestors and the defendants' grandfather in Civil Suit No. 54 of 1911. A compromise decree was passed in that suit on 13th February 1912, by which the grandfather of the present defendants, Bhi...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Gopal Vs. Madan Lal
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All42
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. This application in revision is directed against an order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Agra, dated 3rd May 1949, acquitting the opposite party Madanlal of an offence under Section 406, Penal Code, of which he had been convicted by the Tahsildar Magistrate of Agra on 4th November 1948. A revision against an order of acquittal can be entertained in exceptional cases only and the powers of the High Court in the case of an acquittal are very limited except where an appeal has been filed on behalf of the Provincial Government. For the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the High Court cannot, in exercise of its power of revision, convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. The power of the High Court to direct a retrial in a case in which an accused person has been wrongly acquitted has, however, been recognised and a number of cases has been cited before me in which such power was exercised by this Court.2. In the case of Bhagwan Singh...
Tag this Judgment!Nanilal Roy Vs. Sm. Suniti Bala Debi and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal429
P.B. Mukherjee, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff on a mortgage dated 12th March 1932 asking for a mortgage decree in Form No. 5 of the Appendix D to the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure. This suit was filed after obtaining leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The defendants are mortgagors including their legal representatives and heirs.2. The only issue raised before me on behalf of the defendants is one of jurisdiction. It is said by the defendants that all other properties are zamindary properties situated in the district of Mymensingh outside the original jurisdiction of the High Court and that l/48th undivided share of premises No. 20, Garanhatta Street is the only Calcutta property by which jurisdiction is intended to be found in the High Court. On the basis of the very well-known decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 'Collector of Gorakhpur v. Ram Sundar Mal', 61 I. A. 286 and 'Venkata Rama Rao v. Sobhanadri Appa Rao', 63 I. A. 169 a...
Tag this Judgment!Someshwar Dayal Seth Vs. Shri Dwarkadhish Ji Maharaj
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All61
ORDERSeth, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision against a decree of a Court of Small Causes in a suit for arrears of rent. Previous to the Local Act III [3] of 1947 the defendant was paying a rent at the rate of Rs. 60 per month. In addition to that amount, by virtue of an agreement between the parties, the defendant was also liable for the payment of municipal taxes, that is, the house tax and the water tax, assessed upon the premises. The plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant enhancing the rent to Rs. 81 per month on 7th November 1946. The defendant did not accept the enhancement, with the result that in January 1948 the suit giving rise to this application in revision was instituted claiming a sum of Rs. 653-7-0 from the defendant. The plaintiff claimed ES. 1053 on account of rent for thirteen months at Rs. 81 per month together with Rs. 268-2-0 on account of municipal taxes. From the total figure of RS. 1321-2-0. arrived at by adding these two figures, the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dayal and ors. Vs. Kailashi
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All160
Malik, C.J.1. A suit was decided by a learned Civil Judge on 23rd March 1948. The learned Judge was transferred and his successor assumed office. An application was filed before him under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C. for review. The only ground urged as a ground for review was the omission on the part of his predecessor to consider a patta of the year 1901. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the patta of 1901 was not taken into consideration by his predecessor and granted the application. The learned Judge has not yet decided whether the patta, even if taken into consideration, would affect the decision of the case. It is against that order that this appeal has been filed under Order 43, Rule 1 (w), Civil P. C.2. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Civil Judge, who granted this review, had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and so grant it, Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C. gives the grounds on which a review application can be file...
Tag this Judgment!Subhan and ors. Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All180
Chandiramani, J.1. The appellants Subhan, Gaddi and Bharosey Chamar, were convicted under Section 412, Penal Code, by Mr. Raja Ram Mehra, Civil and Sessions Judge, Sitapur, and sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 100 on 25th April 1949. In the same ease the learned Judge convicted Matai Dhobi, and Tonri, Pasi, appellants under Section 395, Penal Code and sentenced them each to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.2. The prosecution case briefly was that on the night of 11th/12th April 1948, a dacoity was committed at the house of Paragi Lal, Brahman, P. W. 2, in village Musha, Police Station Kotwali, Sitapur. In this dacoity considerable property was looted and several inmates of the house, Janki, Mt. Sukhdei, Moti Lal, Mt. Mahdei and Mt. Savitri were injured. The dacoits were 15 or 16 in number. The dacoits had some electric torches with them and were armed with a country-made revolver and some lathis. A report of this occurrence was made the next...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Majid Vs. Abdul Rashid and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All201
Malik, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order under Section 6-A, Court fees Act demanding court-fees from the defendant in the following circumstances.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for pre-emption. The defendants in their written statement pleaded that they had spent a sum of Rs. 6,500 in making improvements to the property and the plaintiff's suit for pre-emption should not be decreed without making the plaintiff liable for that amount. The Chief Inspector of Stamps reported that the defendants had made a counterclaim and should be made to pay ad valorem court fees on the sum of Rs. 6,500 which, the defendants had alleged, had been spent by them towards the improvements to the property. The learned Civil Judge accepted the report of the Chief Inspector of Stamps and held that the defendants were liable to pay ad valorem court-fees on the sum of Rs. 6,500 on the ground that the defendants had made a counter claim. An appeal against this order has been Bled by the defendant) under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Kutoor Vengayil Rayarappen Nayanar Karnavan of Kullon Vengayil Tarwad ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad215
Horwill, J.1. In this application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the order of this Court dismissing as not maintainable an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry removing the petitioner from receivership and appointing two others, it has been argued that the petitioner has the right to appeal either under Section 109(a) or Section 109(c), Civil P. C.2. As for the first contention that the order passed by us was a final order, it is sufficient to state that a final order is contemplated under Section 109(a) must be one which affects finally the rights of parties. An order removing or appointing a receiver does not affect at all the rights of the parties ; it is merely an order making provision for the due preservation of the estate during the pendency of the suit. This is such a well-recognised principle of law that authority for this proposition should hardly be necessary. We, therefore, content ourselves with referring to Rajnithi v. Nrising...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6747
- 6748
- 6749
- 6750
- 6751
- 6753
- 6754
- 6755
- 6756
- 6757
- Next ›
- Last »