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
Kutoor Vengayil Rayarappen Nayanar of Kullon Vengayil Tarwad Vs. Kutoo ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ601
Horwill, J.1. In this application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the order of this Court : (1949)2MLJ599 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 Procedure Code.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 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 t...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarkadas and Co. Vs. Daluram Goganmull
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal10,54CWN544
Harries, C.J.1. This appeal was referred to a Full Bench for decision by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 5-4-1949. In the referring order two questions are propounded, namely,1. In the circumstances of this case was the arbitration clause contained in the contract between Bubna More & Co. and the respondents imported into the contract made between the respondents and the appellants ?2. Which of the two decisions, namely, Chatturbhuj Chandunmull v. Basdeodas Daga, 47 Cal. 799 : (A. I. R. (8) 1921 Cal. 767) and Haji Vali Mahomed Ayoob v. Shamdeo Gopiram, 34 C. W. N. 447 : : AIR1930Cal774 is correctly decided ?2. To appreciate the points in issue in this appeal it will be necessary shortly to set out the facts.3. By a contract indent No. 73 dated 13-12-1947, a firm known as Bubna More & Co. sold to the respondents in this appeal two lacs yards of American O. D. Cotton Merquisette Olive Colour 48' wide at Re. 1-1.6 per yard.4. By the contract the sellers were to deliver the goods t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: saptaha a Bengali Bi-weekly Newspaper; in Re: Benoy Kumar Chatt ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal444,54CWN334
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition filed by one Benoy Kumar Chattopadhyaya praying that an order of Provincial Government No. 235 Pr. dated 24th March 1949, forfeiting a sum of Rs. 1000 deposited by the petitioner under the provisions of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, (Act XXIII [23] of 1931) be set aside.2. The petitioner was the publisher and printer of a bi-weekly Bengali newspaper called the 'Saptaha'. On 23rd December 1948, the petitioner deposited Rs. 1,000 as security as required by Section 3 of the Act. On 27th January 1949 the petitioner ceased to be the publisher and printer of the newspaper which apparently became defunct. He thereupon applied to the Presidency Magistrate for refund of the deposit which he had made. The Presidency Magistrate ordered an enquiry under Section 13 of the Act. On 24th March 1949, apparently before the result of the enquiry of the Presidency Magistrate had been communicated to the petitioner, the Provincial Government made an order...
Tag this Judgment!Anjuman Islamia Through Zahur UddIn Vs. Latafat Ali and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All109
Malik, C.J.1. I have read the judgment of brother Desai and agree that this appeal should be allowed.2. The lower Court was of the opinion that Wilait Ali had executed the waqfnama dated 21st January 1917, of the six shops with the object of defeating the claim of Mahmoodi Begum. Mahmoodi Begum filed her suit No. 192 of 1920, on 1st November 1920, and it is very unlikely that Wilait Ali would have made this waqf in 1917 with the object of defeating Mahmoodi Begum's claim. Further, there is no reason why Wilait Ali should have made a waqf of only six shops with the object of defeating Mahmoodi Begum's claim when he was possessed of considerable other property. To meet this argument it was stated that Wilait Ali had made a waqf of certain other properties under two waqfnamas of 1918. Those waqfnamas have been held to be valid and no one has challenged the validity thereof. There is no satisfactory evidence to prove that the waqfnama executed in 1917 by Wilait Ali was not intended to take...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwangir Mukundgir and anr. Vs. State
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1950CriLJ1345
ORDERSanghi, J.1. On 27th September 1948, the Magistrate, first alas? at Khaegaon, convicted the two petitioners under Section 18, lndore Penal Code, read with notification no. SO dated 12th October 1920 and also Under Section 74, District Municipalities Act. and sentenced them each to para fine of US. 25. Against this order of conviction and sentence they filed a revision petition in the Court of the Sessions Judge, who has made recommendation to this Court that the petition Bhould be allowed.2. The act of the two petitioners which constitute the offence is that their father Mukundgir died on 37th May 1946 and they buried him in close proximity to their dwelling house in Khate-gaon. The Notification referred to above was issued by the then Home Minister to the Government of His Highness the Maharaja Holkar in the Holkar Government Gazette dated 18th ootober 1930 which reads thus:It is, therefore, hereby ordered that any person burying or burning the dead at a place other than the plac...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Goran Devi Vs. Tuljaram
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ762
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. The opposite party filed a complaint against the applicant in respect of offences punishable Under Section 417 and 424, Penal code. His case was that the husband of the applicant had borrowed a sum of RSection 1823 9.6, that the husband was dead and that he intended to file a civil suit foe recovery of the sum and put in an application for attachment of the gold that the husband of the applicant had left in deposit with the Hind Bank. The applicant gave him to understand that be need not worry as she intended to hand over the gold after she recovered it from the Bank. He accordingly did not file the intended suit. The applicant subsequently recovered the gold but did not pay him the amount due from her and concealed the gold. The case, as such, of the opposite party was that the applicant committed an offence punishable Under Section 417, Penal Code, in thus putting him off from filing the civil suit and committed an officer punishable Under Section 424, Penal ...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Govindan Vs. Mrs. Margaret Jayammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad153
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. On 7th September 1948 an ex parte order for maintenance was passed against the petitioner. He filed an application on 4th January 1949 to set aside that order and also contested the quantum of maintenance. Under the proviso to clause 6 of Section 488, Criminal P. C., an ex parte order may be set aside for good cause shown on application made within three months from the date of the order. This application, which was filed on 4th January 1949, is undoubtedly more than three months from the date of the order. But it is contended by the learned counsel that the period of three months means three months from the date of the knowledge of the order. In short ho wants the word 'knowledge' to be introduced which is not there. I do not see any reason why section should be read with the word 'knowledge' which is not there. If the intention of the Legislature was that it should be three months from the date of the knowledge of the order it would have said so. I, therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rangaraju Naidu Vs. D.J. Keymer and Co. Ltd.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad230
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Yahya Ali J. imposing a condition before permitting the appellant to defend the suit brought against him by the respondents.2. The principal contention of the learned advocate for the appellant is that it was not open to the learned Judge to go into the merits of the defence and to judge the material placed before him to arrive at a conclusion whether or not there was any truth in the case put forward by the defendant. According to this argument, the learned Judge should confine himself to the pleadings. If in the written statement a case is put forward which, if proved, would be a successful answer to the plaint claim, then leave should be granted unconditionally. In support of this argument the learned advocate for the appellant relies on the decision in the House of Lords in Jacobs v. Booth's Distillery Co, (1902) 85 L. T. 260 : 50 W. R. 49, a decision of Beasley C. J. and King J. in Sundaram Chettyiar v. Valliammal, 58 Mad. 116 :...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rangaraju Naidu Vs. D.J. Keymer and Co., Ltd.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ591
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Yahya Ali, J., imposing a condition before permitting the appellant to defend the suit brought against him by the respondents.2. The principal contention of the learned advocate for the appellant is that it was not open to the learned Judge to go into the merits of the defence and to judge the material placed before him to arrive at a conclusion whether or not there was any truth in the case put forward by the defendant. According to this argument the learned Judge should confine himself to the pleadings. If, in the written state' ment, a case is put forward which, if proved, would be a successful answer to the plaint claim, then leave should be granted unconditionally, In support of the argument the learned advocate for the appellant relies on the decision in the Housis of Lords in Jacobs v. Booths Distillery Co. 85 L.T. 362, a decision of Beasley, C.J., and King, J.e in Sundaram Chetly v. Valliammal I.L.R.(1934)Mad. 116, and a rece...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Yenumula Suryanarayanamurthy Dora Garu Vs. Sri Chitrapu Buch ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ774
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act against the order of the learned District Judge of Rajahmundry appointing the appellant herein guardian of his minor brother and directing the delivery of possession of the family properties to him on certain conditions imposed upon by the learned District Judge. The order was that it was only on the fulfilment of those conditions by the petitioner that he is entitled to recover possession of the properties, or to act as the guardian of his minor brother. The learned Judge held that as the elder brother has furnished security as ordered, he was to be appointed as guardian of the property of the minor on usual conditions. O. P. No. 92 of 1935 was an application for the appointment of a property guardian for the petitioner and his minor brother on the ground that both of them were minors and that a guardian should be appointed, because the joint family consisted only of these two minors and there was no...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6748
- 6749
- 6750
- 6751
- 6752
- 6754
- 6755
- 6756
- 6757
- 6758
- Next ›
- Last »