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
Abani Mohan Mukerjee Vs. Biswanath Mukherjee and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal142,54CWN654
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal on behalf of Defendant 1 is directed against a preliminary decree for partition passed by the Sub-ordinate Judge, Howarah.2. The property in suit originally belonged to one Narasinga Mukherjee who died on 16th October 1985, leaving his son Abani Mohan, who is defendant 1 in the present suit and Biswanath, the son of a predeceased son Suranath Biswanth is the plaintiff and his mother Parul Bala is defendant 2. Biswanath brought the present suit for partition by metes and bounds in respect of his 8 anna share in the joint properties.3. Various points were raised by Abani by way of defence but it is not necessary to refer to all those in the present appeal. The plaintiff's mother, Parul Bala, did not file any written statement. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit declaring an 8 anna share in the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff and defendant 1 respectively. The decree further provided:'Defendant 2 be declared to have a right of residen...
Tag this Judgment!Mohini Mohan Saha and ors. Vs. the Province of Bengal
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal246
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. Premises No. 81 Bahir Surah Road, was acquired in connection with Improvement Scheme No. IV--Manicktolla (Supplementary) Excavation Area. The declaration was dated 1-9-1941 published in the Calcutta Gazette on 4-9-1941. There were a large number of claimants and the Collector after hearing the parties fixed the land value at Rs. 250 per cottah as an average rate. Compensation was also allowed for certain trees standing on the laud. Most of the claimants accepted the compensation as allowed by the Collector. Eight of the claimants did not accept the award and applied for a reference to the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal. Before the Tribunal evidence was led and experts were examined on behalf of the claimants and the Province. The claim before the Tribunal on behalf of the claimants was at the average rate of Rs. 500 per cottah. The experts on behalf of both the parties agreed that to ascertain the proper market value the valuation should be fixed by dividing the lan...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarnath Bhattacharjee Vs. Mahendranath Kundu and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal253,54CWN671
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of a small strip of land on declaration of the plaintiffs' title thereto.2. The plaintiffs' case is that their father had purchased holding No. 34 in ward No. 1 of the Nabadwip Municipality which was included within C. S. Plot 1177 of C. S. Khatian No. 4161 of Mouza Nabadwip. It is claimed that the disputed land, which is a narrow strip about 2ft. in breadth and about 57ft. in length appertains to the said holding and as such had been in their possession. C. S. Plot 1178 which lies to the south of plot 1177 belongs to the defendant. To the west of plaintiffs' Plot no. 1177 is C. S. Plot 1176 used for a long time as a common passage by the people in the locality. On 16-5-1942, it is alleged, the defendant dispossessed the plaintiffs from the narrow strip by raising pillars on it and having it fenced off.3. The defence is that the disputed land appertains to th...
Tag this Judgment!indra Chand Dutt Choudhury and ors. Vs. Tinkari Ghose and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal170
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff a against the decision by the Courts below dismissing the plaintiffs' suit against the defend-ants for ejectment.2. The principal question in issue in this appeal depends on an interpretation of Section 182, Bengal Tenancy Act and is one of first impression.3. The plaintiffs are admittedly the owners of premises No. 47/1 now re-numbered 46/1 Barrackpore Trunk Road, covering an area of about 1 1/2 bighas, which had been included upto March 1924, within the municipal limits of Cossipore Chitpore; but from after the passing of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, which came into force an 1st April 1924, it is within the ambit of the Calcutta Corporation. As after service of notice under Section 106, T. P. Act, the defendants had not given up possession, the plaintiff filed the present suit for ejectment There is a further claim for arrears of rent for a certain period upto the date of notice and for damages for use and occupation...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta Agency Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal270,[1950]18ITR635(Cal)
Chatterjee, J.1. The following question has been referred by the Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, to the High Court for its opinion:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the sum of Rs. 22,500 was taxable in the hands of the applicant company.'2. The applicant is a private limited company incorporated in August 1932. From the Memorandum of Association of the company, it appears that it was brought into existence to float various companies including cotton mills.3. In November 1932 a cotton mill was floated under the name of Basanti Cotton Mills Ltd. By Article 132 of the Articles of Association, the applicant company, the Calcutta Agency Ltd., was appointed the Managing Agent of the said Mill.4. The Managing Agents were to receive a monthly allowance of Rs. 500 so long as the subscribed capital did not exceed Rs. 5,00,000 and a commission of 3 per cent on all gross sales of goods manufactured. In case the subscribed capital exceeded Rs. 5,00,000, then for every...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Ram Chandra, a Firm Vs. Dominion of India
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal394
ORDERDas Gupta, J.1. 240 bags of rape seed were booked from Delhi to Burdwan on 17th March 1947, the present petitioner being the consignee. He took delivery on 18th April 1947. All the 240 bags were delivered, but of these 7 had been cut and there was a resultant shortage in the contents, of 3 maunds 35 seers, as certified by the goods clerk who gave delivery. The petitioner having sued the Railway Company for compensation for this loss, the defendants pleaded that due to the special protection afforded by a certain clause in Risk Note A under which the consignment had been sent, the plaintiff could not succeed unless misconduct on the part of the Railway administration's servants was proved and that there was no such misconduct. It was further contended that the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation. 2. The learned Judge of the Small CauseCourt who tried the suit came to the conclusion that the defendants were entitled to protection of the clause in Risk note A, that no miscondu...
Tag this Judgment!Keshar Singh and ors. Vs. Rex Through Prem Ballabh Joshi
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All157
ORDERDesai, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kumaun, with the recommendation that the conviction of Keshar Singh, etc., Under Section 447, Penal Code, by a Magistrate be quashed, It has been found by the Magistrate, the District Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge that Prem Ballabh Joshi and Gauri Datt were in possession of a field, that Keshar Singh, etc. had absolutely no connection with it and that they forcibly ploughed it in spite of the protests of Prem Ballabh. The learned Magistrate and the learned District Magistrate did not consider whether the facts made out an offence Under Section 447, Penal Code or not. They took it for granted that the offence was made out. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, went into the question in detail and was of the opinion that no offence was made out because it was not proved that the intention of Keshar Singh, etc. in committing trespass upon the field was to commit an offence or intimidate...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Saran Singh and anr. Vs. Prithipal Singh
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All224
V. Bhargava, J.1. A simple money decree was obtained on 27th April 1928 by two persons, Bhairon Baksh Singh and Sukhraj Singh against one Mahip Singh. The appellants in this appeal are the successors-in-interest of the decree-holders. Bhairon Baksh Singh and Sukhraj Singh and the respondent is the objector-judgment-debtor, being the grandson and successor-in-interest of Mahip Singh, the original judgment-debtor. In this execution, the decree-holders sought to realise the money by attachment and sale of certain property which the respondent claimed was his personal property and was net liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree against Mahip Singh. The respondent claimed his personal ownership of the property under a deed of gift executed on 37th April 1925 in his favour by Mahip Singh. This deed of gift wag followed by a declaratory suit in which the respondent asked for a declaration that the property was his and the defendant was Mahip Singh. That suit was compromised a...
Tag this Judgment!Rekapalli Radhakrishnayya Alias Frank R. Anderson and anr. Vs. Bhamidi ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1950)2MLJ239
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kakinada decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff, declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a one-third share of the plaint B and C schedule properties with mesne profits and costs of the suit and passing a preliminary decree to that effect.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition by metes and bounds for recovery of her one-third share of the properties set out in B and C schedules appended to the plaint, and, for separate possession of such share. The plaintiff also prayed for mesne profits, past and future, in respect of the schedule mentioned properties. The plaintiff's case was that her maternal grandfather one Paddibhotla Venkata-krishnia executed a deed of settlement dated 5th May, 1903, marked Ex. P-2 in the case, creating an absolute estate in favour of the plaintiff's mother and also two of her maternal aunts to the extent, of one-third share ea...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanabibi Vs. Jayarabi
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad761
Raghava Rao, J.1. This second appeal raises the question whether there was delivery of possession as required by the Muhammadan law under or pursuant to EX. D.-8, a deed of settlement in favour of the defendant by her deceased husband, dated 4th April 1944. The plaintiff though originally a Hindu became a Muslim by conversion and afterwards also a wife of the executant of Ex. D.-8. Both the parties to the present suit ace Muhammadans, even as the executant of EX. D.-8 was. The suit has been decreed by the Courts below on the ground that Ex. D.-8 is of no avail to the defendant for want of delivery of possession.2. The property was in the hands of tenants at the time of Ex. D-8, Under it, firstly the settlor reserves to himself the right to receive rents during his lifetime, and secondly he also undertakes to pay municipal taxes. It is contended by Mr. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant, that notwithstanding these two undisputed facts there was sufficient delivery of posse...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6755
- 6756
- 6757
- 6758
- 6759
- 6761
- 6762
- 6763
- 6764
- 6765
- Next ›
- Last »