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
Rainu Vs. the Crown
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom92; 1950CriLJ510
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicant Rainu was convicted and sentenced to undergo two concurrent terms, each of 6 months rigorous imprisonment, and to pay a fine of RSection 100 under 33. S80 and 454, Penal Code, by the First Olasa Magistrate, Rai-pur; and his appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Raipur. He has now come up in revision to this Court.2. The prosecution case briefly stated was as follows. Shakuntala Bai (P.W. 1) is the wife of Manrakhanlal, who is the brother of the applicant Rainu but lived separate in mess and reBidenoe from him. On 36th May 1947 when Shakuntala Bai was staying at her maternal uncle's house in Rajim, he received the telegram Ex, P 8 which purported to have come from her father-in-law, Bhangi PraBad (P.W. 6) and asked him to send her to Arang at an early date. She accordingly went to Arang with her box of jewellery and placed it in the room occupied by her in a house at that place. She then learnt from her father-in law that the applioant and not he ha...
Tag this Judgment!Bhogilal Fulchand Vs. Chhanaji Bakerji Thakarda
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom329; (1950)52BOMLR408
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ahmedabad, directing that Suit No. 2213 of 1947 pending before him should be transferred to the Chairman of the Debt Adjustment Board for disposal. The facts giving rise to this appeal are few. The Debt Adjustment Board was established in the district of Ahmedabad on 2nd January 1947. Accordingly the last date for filing applications for adjustment of dates was 31st July 1947. On 3rd September 1947, the plaintiff, a debtor, filed a suit for redemption against the defendant alleging that a document of sale which he had passed in favour of the defendant was really in the nature of a mortgage. On 8th April 1948, an application was made to the Court saying that 'the plaintiff was an agriculturist, that he had evidence to prove his status as an agriculturist, that he should be held an agriculturist and that the matter should be sent to the Debt Adjustment Board.' ...
Tag this Judgment!Habib Ahmed Rizvi Vs. the Crown
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1950CriLJ817
ORDERHemeon, J.1. This an application by Habib Ahmed Rizvi, Retired Extra-Assistant Commissioner, resident of Raipur, Under Sections 491 and 561-A, Criminal P.C. to set aside the order, dated 21st June 1949, of the Deputy Commissioner, Raipur, directing him to leave India for Western Pakistan within a period of three days.2. The case of the applicant is that he is a permanent resident of the Central Provinces. He held the position of Extra-Assistant Commissioner and retired in 1939. During the disturbances in 1947, the applicant's mother-in-law took his daughter to Karachi when her family shifted there. In March 1916 he went to Karachi to see his daughter and to make arrangements for her marriage. His wife and children remain, ed at Raipur which is his permanent home. In September 1948 when he was about to return to Raipur he found that the permit system had been introduced. He, therefore, made an application to the High Commissioner for India for a permit to return to Raipur on the gr...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Inspector of Stamps Vs. Shri Gopalji Maharaj
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All231
ORDERSeth, J.1. This is an application in revision by the Chief Inspector of Stamps under Section 6-B, of the amended Court-fees Act, claiming that the court-fee under Section 7(IV-A) is payable by the plaintiff on the plaint. The relevant allegations in the plaint are that. Bhatele Bishun Kumar and Bhatele Shiva Kumar became entitled to the property in suit under a decree passed on 27th August 1930, by the Civil Judge of Etawah, that on 19th May 1934, Bhatele Bishun Kumar executed a wakf deed by which he gave the property of his share to the plaintiff Shri Gopal Ji Maharaj, which is an idol; that thereafter Bhatele Bishun Kumar executed a sale-deed of the very same property in favour of Rajendra Kumar and Birendra Kumar, the first two defendants to the suit. The plaintiff further alleged that the sale-deed in favour of the first two defendants was fictitious, bogus and invalid. On these allegations the plaintiff claimed possession of the property in suit and also pendente lite and fut...
Tag this Judgment!Rasa Goundan and anr. Vs. Ramai Goundan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad276
Raghava Rao, J.1. Within six months of an order of the District Collector dismissing as with-drawn an appeal preferred by the respondent before me against an order of the Collector acting under Section 44 B, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act holding that the inam in question consisted only of the melwaram, the respondent filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises for a declaration that the inam constituted of both the melwaram and the kudiwaram. The appellant before me as defendants in the suit contended inter alia as follows in paragraph (6) of their written statement: 'The plaintiff filed an appeal before the District. Col' lector, Coimbatore, but did not press the appeal. Therefore there was no judicial order by the District Collector on the appeal petition as contemplated by Section 44-B (2) (d) (ii) of the said Act find the plaintiff had no reasons to be aggrieved and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation since he cannot rely on the order of the District Colle...
Tag this Judgment!S. Raja Ghetty and ors. Vs. Jagannathadas Govindas and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad284
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Second Judge, Small Clauses Court, Madras, sitting as the appellate authority made by him on 16th August 1949 in H. R. A. No. 1077 of 1949 setting aside the order of the Rent Controller dated 2nd August 1949 and directing eviction of the petitioner from the premises described as 'Maharani Talkies'.2. By a registered deed dated 15th November 1948 executed by and between the petitioners and respondents 1 to 3, the respondents as lessors demised to the petitioners as lessees the cinema theatre known as 'Maharani Theatre or Maharani Talkies', Madras, situated in Washerman pet. What was demised is thus described in the indenture: ''All the piece of ground with the new cinema theatre including the buildings and stall erected thereon known as 'Maharani Theatre' or 'Maharani Talkies' . . . together with all easements and appurtenances whatsoever thereunto belonging and also all the fixture...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadambal Vs. Saraswathi Ammal and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad303
Subba Rao, J.1. The question that arises in this appeal is whether in the case of competition between a dasi daughter and married daughters to succeed to the estate of her mother, the former would exclude the latter.2. The relevant facts necessary for appreciating the question of law raised in this case may be stated. The following pedigree may usefully be referred to.AMMANI AMMAL|-------------------------------------------------------------| | | |Muthulakshmi Thulasi Kumudam Mangalam|Thangathammal (died 25-7-1943)|--------------------------------------------------------- | | |Saraswati (1st Deft.) Jagadambal (Plff.) Meenambal (2nd deft.)The members of the family belong to the dasi or dancing girls community. Thangathammal was a dasi and in accordance with custom, she had bottu tied in a temple. Saraawathi defendant 1, also had bottu tied in the temple. But Jagadam bal and Meenambal got married. Thangath ammal died intestate on 25th July 1943 possessed of property. On her death, the pl...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Balakrishna Ayyar and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad753
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff's case was that he was a co-owner with the defendant of certain properties which his co-owners leased to him, and so was entitled to exclusive enjoyment. While in this exclusive enjoyment he was disturbed in his possession by the defendants. He filed a petition under Section 145, Criminal P. C., and as a result of the enquiry the Magistrate was unable o say who was in possession. He therefore attached the property and put it in the possession of the local Tahsildar, directing the parties to file a civil suit. Instead of filing a regular suit, the plaintiff filed a suit under Section 9, Specific Relief Act within six months of the date when, according to him, he was dispossessed by the defendants. That suit has been allowed.2. Two questions arose for decision. One was whether in view of Section 145, Criminal P. C. proceedings, a suit under Section 9, Specific Relief Act was maintainable and (2) whether a suit will lie by one co-owner for possession against ot...
Tag this Judgment!Thalluri Lakshminarasayya Vs. Narella Appalaswami and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad756
Mack, J.1. The petitioner is a decree-holder who on 3rd August 1946 filed an execution petition to enforce a bond against a surety who had executed a bond under Section 55, Civil P. C. on behalf of the judgment-debtor on 28th December 1942. The judgment-debtor had been arrested in execution and been produced in Court when on security being furnished he was released. In the bond the surety undertook to pay the entire decretal amount if the judgment-debtor did not file an insolvency petition within a month and did not prosecute it; or if he failed to produce the judgment-debtor whenever called upon. The insolvency petition was dismissed for non deposit of gazette notification charges on 13th September 1943. The learned District Munsif held that this execution against the surety was time barred on the very curious ground that as execution was barred against the judgment-debtor himself, it was barred against the surety also. It appears to have been conceded quite wrongly before the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Ralyaram Melaram, a Firm and anr. Vs. Kaluram Agarwalla and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal149
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order made by a learned Subordinate Judge of Asansol ordering the defendants to supply certain particulars of the written statement filed by them.2. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge in which they prayed for the cancellation of a lease dated 21st May 1946, executed and registered by a predecessor of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that on 22th April 1946 the predecessor of the plaintiffs as karta of a joint family entered into an agreement with defendant 2 for the grant of a lease of certain coal bearing lands. On 21st May 1946, this lease was actually executed by the predecessor of the plaintiffs.3. The plaintiffs alleged that at the time of the agreement another lease was produced and it was agreed that the terms of the proposed lease would be the same as those in the lease which was produced. Defendant 2, it is said, was to draft the lease which he did. The allegation is that he presented a d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6759
- 6760
- 6761
- 6762
- 6763
- 6765
- 6766
- 6767
- 6768
- 6769
- Next ›
- Last »