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
Sadananda Pyne Vs. Harinam Sha and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal179
Das Gupta, J.1. The principal question for decision in this appeal is whether the Dikshaguru of a Hindu not being the person who invested him with the sacred thread is his heir, on failure of other heirs. The appeal is against the decision of a Probate Court, allowing an application for revocation of a probate that bad been granted of a will of one Manmatha Nath Mandal, who will be later referred to simply as Manmatha. Manmatha died in July 1933, leaving his widow Manada Bala Dassi hereinafter referred to as Manada. Manada died in 1945. Disputes arose over properties left by Manmatha, after the death of Manada, between purchasers from Pachkari Bhuian who sold as a guardian of Gokul said to have been adopted by Manmatha and the purchaser from Janaki Nath Chakravarti who claimed to be Manmatha's heir on the death of Manada, on the ground that he was Manmatha's 'Dikshaguru'. On 23rd August 1945, Panchkari Bhuian applied for Probate of a will said to have been left by Manmatha. He stated t...
Tag this Judgment!Jesingbhai Ujamshi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom198; (1950)52BOMLR94; [1950]18ITR23(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of Jesingbhai and his son Manilal and his grandson Shantilal. The firm came into existence in 1924, and in 1924 the partners were Jesingbhai, Manilal and Mangaldas, the father of Shantilal. Mangaldas died in 1941 and Shantilal was introduced into the partnership. This firm does business at Ahmedabad and its business consists of sarafi, insurance, brokerage, cotton, etc., and there is a partnership deed defining the shares of the partners which is dated 26th January 1984. According to this partnership deed, the shares of the three partners are 5 annas each and 1 anna is reserved for charity, but as that share is completely under the control of Jesingbhai it has been found by the Department, and that finding is accepted by the Tribunal, that that share really belongs to Jesingbhai. Therefore, the shares are 6 annas to Jesingbhai and 6 annas each to the other two partners. These three partners also carried on another business at...
Tag this Judgment!Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom200; (1950)52BOMLR91; [1950]18ITR139(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is a limited company which was incorporated in the year 1939 and the object of the company is manufacture and sale of sugar. On 26th October 1943, the assessee company advanced a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 to Messrs. Agarwal and Co., on a demand promissory note. The managing agents of the assessee company are partners in this firm. It is found as a fact by the Tribunal and it is admitted by the assessee company that the assessee company had not in the past advanced any such sum in similar circumstances to any other person.2. The question that arises for our determination is whether this sum of Rs. 6,00,000 constitutes, within the meaning of Rule 1 (1) (b) of Schedule II to the Excess Profits Tax Act, a debt due to the assessee. If so, it would go to increase its capital as contemplated by schedule II of that Act, The Tribunal took the view that the business of the company was not money-lending business and therefore the advance made by the assessee company was not ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Thaper Vs. the Province of Bombay
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom213; (1950)52BOMLR62
Chagla, C.J1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Coyajee J. by which he held that a petition for a writ of certiorari which was asked for by the petitioner and the appellant before us was not maintainable and the writ could not be issued against the Province of Bombay.2. The short facts which led up to this petition may be stated. The appellant is the editor and publisher of a weekly called 'Cross Roads,' and on 21st July 1948, he made a declaration as required by the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act before the Chief Presidency Magistrate. He had some difficulties in getting the necessary paper for printing the weekly and therefore the weekly could not be printed, and he filed a new declaration before the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the Chief Presidency Magistrate made an order calling upon him to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000 under Section 7 (1), Press (Emergency Powers) Act. This was some time in April 1949, and the petitioner carried out the order by making the necessary depos...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Mayachand and Co. Vs. A.N.L. Fernandes
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom259; (1950)52BOMLR61
Chagla, C.J.1. These three appeals raise a common question, and the question is whether the learned Judge below was right in refusing leave under Clause 12, Letters Patent, for the filing of the three salts which the appellants wanted to file in this Court. All the three suits are filed on promissory notes. In Appeal No. 53 of 1949 the promissory note provides that the moneys advanced in the promissory note are payable either in Bombay, Poona or elsewhere, and in the other two appeals the promissory note provides that the moneys are payable wherever demanded. In all the three cases the attorney for the plaintiff called upon the defendant to pay the moneys due under the promissory note in Bombay. Therefore it is clear that in all these three cases moneys under the promissory note were payable in Bombay and it is also clear that in a suit on a promissory note the fact that the money a are payable within jurisdiction is a material part of the cause of action.2. It is perfectly true that t...
Tag this Judgment!Virupaxappa Appa Mahajan Vs. Shankar Mallappa Kavare and anr.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom260; (1950)52BOMLR294
Rajadhyaksha J.1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff against an order dismissing the suit passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara, in Special civil Suit No. 42 of 1945. The few facts that are necessary to state for the purpose of this appeal are these:2. Defendant 1 had obtained a mortgage decree against the plaintiff in Suit No. 290 of 1940 in the Court of the Civil Judge at Islampur, and an order was made for the payment of Rs. 2,600 and odd and costs payable by the plaintiff in instalments. There was a provision in the decree that in default of payment of any two instalments the whole amount was to be recoverable at once. There were defaults for the years 1941 and 1942 and thereupon defendant 1 filed a darkhast, No. 915 of 1942, in the Court of the Civil Judge at Islampur for recovering the whole amount by sale of the mortgaged property. On 7th October 1942, the papers were transferred to the Collector for execution under Section 68, Civil P. C. 25th January 1944...
Tag this Judgment!Komil Singh and ors. Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All199
Agarwala, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Budaun.2. It appears that Komil Singh was convicted Under Section 3, Public Gambling Act, III [3] of 1867, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 45/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half months. Munshi Singh, Nanneh, Pati, Mangli and Kehar Singh were convicted Under Section 4 of the same Act and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 35/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Certain moneys were recovered from their persons on search, and certain moneys were recovered from the place where they were gambling. The learned Magistrate who tried the case in the first instance and convicted the appellants, ordered the forfeiture not only of the moneys found at the place where the accused were gambling but also of the moneys which were found on their persons upon search.3. Komil Singh and others went, in revision, to the learned Sessions Judge who made a reference to this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Jagjit Singh and ors. Vs. Sankatha Singh and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All675
1. The two questions which have been referred to the Fall Bench are as follows : (1) Whether the provisions of Order 34, Rule 7 (2) and Rule 9, Civil P. C., apply to a case in which an order allowing redemption of a mortgage has been made under Section 16, Agriculturists' Relief Act and the mortgage money has not been deposited within the time fixed by the Court, and (2) if the said provisions do not apply can the time fixed by an order under Section 16, Agriculturists' Relief Act, for payment of the redemption money be extended either on the principles underlying those provisions or under Sections 148 or 151, Civil P.C.?2. The facts which led to this reference to a Full Bench are briefly as follows: The petitioners made an application for redemption of a mortgage under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act. On 31st August 1942, Mr. R. K. Sircar, Munsif Rae Bareli, passed an order for redemption on payment of Rs. 486-6-0 within six months of the date of the order. On 27th February 194...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj17; 1950CriLJ920
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. The applicant stands convicted and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Bs. 500 or, in default of such, to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment Under Section 10 of Central Act II [2] of 1930. The applicant pleaded 'guilty' the charge, and as the only point that has been raised or could have been raised on behalf of the applicant in revision is that the sentences err on the side of severity.3. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is about 70 years of age and that his state of health is not good. The Jail Superintendent was asked to report as what was the approximate age of the applicant and as to what was his state of health. He writes-to say that the applicant is about 65 years of age and that his condition of health at present is-good, No question accordingly arises as to why a lenient view of the matter be taken. The applicant was found smuggling about 3o sense...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Charan Lal and ors. Vs. B. Harcharan Lal and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All665
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 6 (a), U. P. Court-fees Act against an order of the learned District Judge of Moradabad requiring the appellants to pay further court-feeon their memorandum of appeal filed before him. The appellants were co-debtors of the principal landlord-applicant in certain proceeding under the Encumbered Estates Act, Under Section 9 of the Act the learned Special Judge had determined the proportionate liabilities of the applicant. This determination was challenged in appeal by the appellants before the learned District Judge. Treating the appeal as one only against an order, the appellants had paid the usual court-fee. 2. The office reported that ad valorem court-fee was required, inasmuch as the appellants had sought the cancellation of the decrees which, rightly or wrongly, had been passed by the Special Judge. The learned District Judge agreed with this report, and ordered that the appellants should pay ad valorem court fee on the decrees whi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6760
- 6761
- 6762
- 6763
- 6764
- 6766
- 6767
- 6768
- 6769
- 6770
- Next ›
- Last »