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
Provat Kumar Kar and ors. Vs. William Trevelyan Curties Parkar
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal116
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate convicting the ten petitioners of an offence under Section 26, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of us. 25. In default of payment of the fine it was provided that each should undergo a period of seven days' imprisonment.2. The ten petitioners were employees of Messrs. Lloyd Bank Limited, and were employed at the Head Office and the Chowringhee Office of the Bank. Disputes had arisen between the Bank and its employees and on 17th January 1948, these disputes were referred to the adjudication of a Tribunal under Section 10(1)(c), Industrial Disputes Act (X1V [14] of 1947).3. Before these proceedings had terminated the ten petitioners together with other employees of the Bank went on a one-day strike on 17th August 1948. This one-day strike admittedly had nothing to do with the disputes which had been referred to the adjudication of a Tribunal under ...
Tag this Judgment!Suchandra Kumar Samanta Vs. the King and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal138
Das Gupta, J.1. This Rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Howrah to show cause why proceedings under Sections 465/109, Penal Code pending in the Court of Mr. Ghatak should not be transferred to some other Court. Two persons, Pramatha Harabab and Haradhan Banerjee were summoned under Section 417, Penal Code on a complaint of one Amulya Charan Harabab, filed on 26th July 1948. After the case was transferred to Mr. Ghatak for trial, several witnesses were examined and the present petitioner Suchandra Kumar Samanta was actually examined as a witness on 28th April 1949. On 6th June, an application appears to have been filed on behalf of the complainant that Suchandra and another person should be summoned to take their trial. The order passed by the Magistrate on 6th June does not indicate that the learned Magistrate did read this petition carefully for he appears to have read it only as a petition for examination of the lawyer Bejoy Krishna Roy Choudhury. On 29th June, he discussed...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Majid Vs. the King
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal165
ORDERSen, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the accused whose application to be given copies of the witnesses' statement to the police during the investigation of this case has been refused by the learned trying Magistrate. Against the order of refusal the Sessions Judge was moved to refer the matter to this Court. The learned Sessions Judge stated that the order was bad but he said that the Magistrate may reconsider the order and allow the defence to get copies of the statements made by the witnesses before the police or he may acquit the accused. For these reasons he thought that he should not delay the proceedings by making a reference to this Court.2. The learned Magistrate's order is in my opinion entirely wrong. An accused person is entitled under the provisions of Section 162, Criminal P. C., to get copies of the statements made by persons to the police during an investigation under Ch. 14 of the said Code provided that such persons are examined as witnesses by the prosecution...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimha Setty Vs. Chennamma and anr.
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant8; AIR1950Mys8
Balakrishnaiya, J. 1. The appellant is the petitioner who filed Misc. case No. 51 of 47-48 in the Court of the Munsiff, Bangalore, under the Mysore Guardian and Wards Act for the appointment of himself as the guardian of the person of his minor daughter, Lingamma, and for the custody of the minor. Respondent 1 is the mother's sister of the minor and respondent 2 is the husband of respondent 1. The trial Court has refused to grant either of the prayers of the petitioner and hence this appeal. 2. One of the allegations in the petition is that in view of the close relationship existing between the parties, the petitioner was sending the minor Lingamma to live with the respondents for sometime off and on and bring her back after a few days, that about six months ago, the respondents took the child with the consent of the petitioner to keep her with them for a few days, but have refused to send the child back, the other allegation is that the respondents are arranging to give away the child...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Iqbal Ahmad Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All162
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. These are two criminal miscellaneous cases arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 1948 in which the applicants in Criminal Misc. case No. 941 of 1949 have appealed against their convictions and the sentences of transportation for life that have been passed upon them. In their application they say that they have engaged Sir Iqbal Ahmad to argue their appeal and pray that permission be accorded to him to appear on their behalf in this Court. The other case--criminal Misc. case No. 940 of 1949--arises out of an application by Sir Iqbal Ahmad himself praying for the permission of this Court to argue the said appeal on behalf of the appellants.2. Sir Iqbal Ahmad was an advocate of the Allahabad High Court and was later appointed a Puisne Judge of that Court. In or about the year 1933, on his appointment as a Puisne Judge of that Court he gave an undertaking not to practice in the Court or in the Courts subordinate thereto after his retirement. He continued to wo...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hamid Vs. Juman
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All266
ORDERDesai, J.1.This is rather an unfortunate case because the learned Sessions Judge who decided the appeal has done so on mere surmises and thereby caused injustice to the applicant. The applicant paid Rs. 400 to the opposite party Jumman in order to buy from him a sewing machine at Calcutta. But the opposite party neither bought the machine nor returned the money to the applicant. The applicant thereupon prosecuted him under Section 406 and succeeded in the trial Court but not in the Sessions Court. The defence of the opposite party in both the Courts was that the applicant had paid the money not to him but to one Abdul Majid and he even led evidence to prove this. But it has been found by both the Courts that the money was paid to the opposite party. On this finding he should have been convicted because he has not bought the machine and has misappropriated the money. His denial of the receipt of the money is nothing but misappropriation. The learned Sessions Judge, however, made ou...
Tag this Judgment!Chitto Adhikari Vs. Vidya Bhushan Sharma
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All455
ORDERDesai, J. 1. The opposite party filed a complaintunder Section 500, Penal Code, against the applicantin the Court of the City Magistrate of Banaras,who, without issuing a process, dismissed it on28th June 1947 on the ground that it was toovague, but, at the same time, expressly left itopen to the opposite party to file a fresh complaint.Accordingly on 2nd september 1947 hefiled a fresh complaint on the same facts and theCity Magistrate transferred it for trial to theCourt of Mr. J. D. Shah. Mr. J. D. Shah againdismissed the complaint on 19th September 1947without issuing a process and without going intothe merits. His order was erroneous on the faceof it and the opposite party got it set aside bythe learned Sessions Judge in revision. Thecomplaint went back to Mr. Shah for disposalbut it was transferred from his Court, to thatof Mr. M. M. Krishana. Mr. Krishana fixed 8thJuly 1948, for hearing evidence under Section 202,Criminal P. C. On that date the opposite partywas absent and t...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Gadadhar Ramanuj Das and ors. Vs. the Province of Orissa and anr.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori47
Narasimham, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the judgment of the District Judge of Cuttack dismissing their suit for a declaration that the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939 (Orissa Act, IV of 1939) was ultra vires of the Orissa Legislature and for other consequential reliefs. The appellant plaintiffs are all Mahants of various Maths situated in the Province of Oriasa and the suit was brought by them in a representative capacity under Order X, Rule 8, Civil P. C. No evidence was led by either side and the sole question in dispute is a question of law regarding the competence of the Orissa Legislature to enact the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act.2. The impugned Act was passed by the Orissa Legislative Assembly and received the assent of the Governor. General on 31st August 1933. The Assembly passed the said Act in exercise of the legislative powers conferred on them by Sections 99(1) and 100(3), Government o...
Tag this Judgment!King-emperor Vs. Lachhu Kamara
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori62
Ray, C.J. 1. The respondent (Lachhu Kamara) was put on trial for baring committed an offence under Section 224, Penal Code, on the allegations that he offered resistance to his lawful apprehension for an offence under Section 447, Penal Code, with which he was then charged and that he escaped from the custody of Sri K. M. Cbakrabarty, officer-in-charge of Lamptaput Out Post, by whom he was lawfully detained for tbe said offence. 2. He was acquitted of this charge by Sri K. K- Samal, Sub-divisional Magistrate, Koraput. This appeal by the Government is directed against that order of acquittal. In order to bring the charge home to the accused, it has to be established that the accused intentionally offered resistance to his lawful apprehension for any offence with which he was charged or he escaped from the custody in which he was lawfully detained. It was to be examined whether these elements of the offence have been established in this case. To start with, there are no materials on reco...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed AmIn Bros. Ltd. Vs. Dominion of India and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal323,54CWN514
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a Judgment & order of Sinha, J., winding up the appellant co. The appellants are a limited Company with a nominal capital of Rs. 15,00,000/- divided into 1,500 shares of Rs. 1,000/- each. The amount of capital paid up or credited as paid up is Rs. 15,00,000. The Company carries on the business of Exporters & Importers of hides & skins & other commodities. On 30-3-1948 the Company was assessed to income-tax & corporation tax for the assessment years 1944-45 1945-46, & 1946-1947 in the amount of Rs. 4,56,562-5-0. On the same date the Company was also assessed for the periods ending 31-10-1943, 31-10-1944, & 31-10-1945 at Rs. 30,44, 234/- on account of excess profits tax & compulsory deposits. The total amount of tax for which the co. was assessed was therefore Rs. 35,00,796-5-0. The income-tax assessments for the years 1947-48 & 1948-49 have not been completed & are still pending. On 9-4-1948 notices of demand of the amounts due were served on the C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6756
- 6757
- 6758
- 6759
- 6760
- 6762
- 6763
- 6764
- 6765
- 6766
- Next ›
- Last »