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
Jagmal Raja Vs. the Crown
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1950P& H83; 1950CriLJ590
Falshaw, J.1. This judgment will deal with two petitions by Shri Jagmal Raja, the first Under Section 661A and the second Under Section 439 Criminal P.C.2. The petitioner is one of fire accused against whom a case is pending Under Section 161, Penal Code, Section 5 (2)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, ii [3] of 1947 and Section 109, Penal Code. The other four accused involved in the case are Mr. N. N. Mitra, who at the time of the alleged offence was Secretary to the Air Transport Licensing Board, Mr. Dhanvin B. Shukla, Mr. Vijaysingh Govindji and Mr. Bahadursingh Vijaysingh. The accused other than Mr. Mitra are connected with the company known as the Ambica Air Lines Ltd,, of Bombay, Mr. Shukla being the representative of the firm in Delhi while the other three, according to the prosecution allegations, are partners in the firm Govindji and Sons who are the managing agents of Ambica Air Lines Ltd. The case againbt the accused is that this company at the end of the year 1947 had an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Muthangi Butchi Ramayya Vs. Gurrala Venkata Subbarao and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad214
Raghava Rao, J.1. The appellant before me was defendant 6 in the original suit which was laid for recovery of a one-tenth share out of a two-third share of a whole property, the other one-third of which defendant 6 had become owner by virtue of a court auction purchase of the interest of one Krishnarao, a member of the family of the plaintiff and the other defendants to the present suit, by defendant 6 himself as his execution creditor. After the purchase, defendant 6 in fact filed his own suit for partition and recovery of his one-third share in the right of Krishnarao and before the final decree in that suit was actually passed, defendants 1 to 5 in the present suit, of whom defendant 2 is the father of the plaintiff in the present suit, applied to buy up the share of the present defendant 6 who was the plaintiff in the former suit, under the provision of Section 4, Partition Act. Defendants 1 to 5 in fact were given the chance to buy up the share in accordance with the provision of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sayyaparaju Surayya Vs. Nekkanti Anandayya and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad525; (1950)IIMLJ313
Raghava Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession, which has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The suit was laid on the basis that there was an alienation by a limited estate holder, in favour of the plaintiff which was quite valid and binding upon the defendant, who happened to be reversioner to the estate. There was, in fact, a small cause suit on a prior occasion by this very plaintiff against this very defendant, who at the time occupied the position of a lessee, for recovery of rent. During the time the small cause suit was pending there was a reference to arbitration, not through Court but outside. The award that resulted from the arbitration declared that the present defendant was a reversioner to the estate of the last male-holder and that the plaintiff had no title to the property, which had been the subject-matter of the alienation by the widow of the last male holder. After the award, curiously enough there was still a decree passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Digambar Ramchandra and anr. Vs. the Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mil ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom174; (1950)52BOMLR46
Chagla, C. J.1. There was a breakdown in the machinery of the Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Company who are the plaintiffs in the suit from which this appeal arises and the mills had to be temporarily closed from 7th July 1946, up to 1st September 1946. The employees of the company claimed that they were entitled to be paid compensation during the period of the stoppage of the mills. On 28th December 1946, the Provincial Government referred the industrial dispute between the employees of the company and the company to arbitration under Section 49A, Bombay Industrial Disputes Act, 1938, and the arbitrator Divan Bahadur Kamerkar gave his award on 24th March 1948. By this award he awarded that the employees should be paid compensation for 45 days at the rate of 75 per cent. for the first 15 days and 60 per cent. for the remaining 30 days. It is this award which has been challenged by the mills as being illegal and ultra vires. The learned Judge who heard the suit came to the conclus...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Das Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All99
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. The applicant Narain Das was in this revision as well as the other connected revisions numbered 925, 926, 927 and 951 convicted under para. 8, U. P. Oil Seeds and Oilseeds' Products Control Order, 1945 issued under Notification No. A-7584/C. S. dated 1st September 1945, read with Sub-rule 4 of Rule 81, Defence of India Rules and sentenced to thirty days' rigorous imprisonment in the case out of which this revision arises and to various amounts of fines in the other cases, by Shri Brij Behari Lal, Magistrate of the First Class, Allahabad. His appeals were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad. He has come up in revision to this Court against his convictions and sentences. The offences alleged to have been committed in all these cases occurred between 1st December 1945 and 26th January 1946. The Control Order was issued by the U. P. Government in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-rule 2 of Rule 81, Defence of India Rules. The Defence of India...
Tag this Judgment!S.E. Orde Vs. Mrs. T.C. Deacon and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All582
Malik, C.J. 1. This is a revision against an order passed by the learned first Civil Judge of Meerut rejecting an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis. An application was filed as required by Order 33 Rule 2, Civil P. C. The application contained the particulars required in regard to plaints. A schedule of the property belonging to the applicant was also given & the estimated value thereof & the document was signed & verified by the applicant. It was mentioned in the application that the applicant, was a pauper & was unable to pay the court-fees. A second application which was wholly unnecessary was attached to the application mentioned above & that has given rise to an objection by the opposite party that the second application was the real application under Order 33 & was defective as it was not in accordance with the provisions of Order 33, Rule 2, Civil P. C. We have looked into the first application which has been called 'the plaint' & are satisfied that the document ful...
Tag this Judgment!Chunduru Krishnayya Vs. Kolluri Subba Rao and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad206
Raghava Rao, J.1. In this case two interesting questions of law have been argued before me at some length, viz., (1) whether a promissory note executed by a lawful guardian of a minor for a debt binding on his estate can itself be sued upon or only the debt evidenced thereby can be sued for, and (2) whether an endorsee of such a promissory note can without any assignment of the debt sue on the promissory note for the recovery of the debt evidenced thereby.2. The Courts below dismissed the suit out of which this second appeal arises. The plaintiff has appealed. The ground of the dismissal of the suit by the Courts below is that although by means of an amendment of the original plaint the plaintiff has raised the case of relief on the basis of the debt quite apart from and in addition to the promissory note basis, the endorsement of the promissory note does not per se carry with it the right to recover without an assignment of the debt itself which there is not. It is common ground befor...
Tag this Judgment!Sayyaparaju Surayya Vs. Koduri Kondamma
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad239
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree dismissing her suit under Section 77, Registration Act. Plaintiff's husband presented to the Sub-Registrar of Kothapeta on 8th January 1944 a document purporting to be a sale deed executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff on 29th September 1943. The Sub-Registrar refused to register the document as the defendant denied its execution. There was an appeal against that decision of the Sub-Registrar to the District Registrar who agreed with the Sub-Registrar and confirmed his decision. His order is dated 15th November 1944. A suit was thereafter instituted by the plaintiff on 13th December 1944 under Section 77, Registration Act for enforcing registration of the document. The document is Ex. P-2 in the case. The document consists of six sheets of paper of which five sheets are stamp papers of the aggregate value of Rs. 82 8-0. The sixth and the last sheet is a brown paper and there is the thumb impres...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Nath Sinha Vs. Maharajadhiraj of Burdwan and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal146,54CWN310
ORDERG.N. Das, J.1. This rule was obtained by an applicant under Section 37A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act and is directed against an order dated 28th September 1948 passed by the learned District Judge of Birbhum.2. The facts are not in dispute and may be stated as follows: The disputed land formed part of a non-transferable occupancy holding which was held under the opposite party No. 1. On 10th March 1927 one Panchanan Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, purchased a share in the said holding. In execution of a certificate for arrears of rent obtained by the landlord opposite party No. 1 against the recorded tenant, the disputed holding was brought to sale on 22nd November 1938 and was purchased by the certificate, holder. Thereafter the purchaser at the certificate sale took possession on 2nd July 1942. To these proceedings Panchanan Singh or the present petitioner was not made a party, presumably because the purchase by Panchanan Singh was not recognised by the...
Tag this Judgment!Chand Shankar Vs. Bohre Sukh Lal
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1951All383
Seth, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor to a decree passed against him on 31-10-1945 which entitles the decree-holder respondent to evict him (the judgment-debtor, appellant) from a house, by putting the decree in execution, if he (the judgment-debtor) fails to vacate it by 31-12 1946. The suit which resulted in the decree, was instituted on 7-10-1944, with the permission of the District Magistrate which was perhaps necessary to maintain the suit because of certain control orders, then in force.2. The judgment-debtor failed to vacate the house by 31-12-1946, and so the decree-holder put the decree in execution on 11-1-1947. Before the decree-holder could succeed in evicting the judgment, debtor the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (III [3] of 1947) came into force, with retrospective effect from 1-10-1946. Section 14 of the Act provides:'No decree for the eviction of a tenant from any accommodation passed before the date of commencement of this Act shall, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6752
- 6753
- 6754
- 6755
- 6756
- 6758
- 6759
- 6760
- 6761
- 6762
- Next ›
- Last »