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
The Municipal Board Vs. B. Mangli Lal
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All554
Malik, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Municipal Board of Agra against a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing an appeal in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution.2. The plaintiff Mangli Lal is a Sub-Post-Master and was on the material date posted at Agra. He had acquired a plot of land from the Nazul Department and was building a house thereon. On 6-1-1940, the Sanitary Inspector was directed to inspect the lavatory built in the house, take measurements of certain constructions and make hia report. On 23-1-1940, the Sanitary Inspector, Iqbal Ahmad, along with his Jamadar and a peon went to the house of the plaintiff. There was no order of the Board under Section 287, Municipalities Act, entitling the Sanitary Inspector to enter the house and he should have, therefore, waited for the permission of the plaintiff. He, however, went straight into the zenana portion of the house to which the plaintiff took great objection. The Sanitary Inspeotor, on hisreturn, mad...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Hiralal Gangaram
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ872
Rege, J.1. The opponent was put up before the District and Sessions Judge, Mandsour on an accusation of murder under Section 292 of the Gwalior, Tajirat. The proceedings preliminary to commitment which commenced on 24.6.1948 were closed so far as the prosecution was concerned on 25.1.1949, after a number of unnecessary adjournments several of which were on the ground of want of time. I would observe that the trial or enquiry in a case of this kind looses its importance by inordiante delay in the proceedings and a large number of adjournments by reason of want of time indicate inefficiency and want of control over the work. It ought not to be difficult for the Presiding Officer of the Court, to fix work in such quantity as will reasonably enable him to get through it so that parties may not be put to unnecessary inconvenience and expense and in criminal cases in particular the evidence being mostly oral and subject to loss of weight by lapse of time, the Presiding Officer must be astute...
Tag this Judgment!Kandaswami Naick Vs. Ponnu Naick Alias Veerappa Naick and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad279
Govinda Menon, J.1. Defendant 5 in the trial Court who was a purchaser of the suit properties from defendant 4 who, in his turn was again a purchaser from defendant 3, appeals to this Court aggrieved by the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura in A. S. No. 178 of 1945 on his file. It is seen that defendant 3 had purchased the tenancy rights in the properties at a private auction held by the manager of the Mannarkottai Zamin to which estate the land belonged, for arreas of rent due to the estate. It is alleged that the plaintiffs who were the occupancy ryots under the Manarkottai Zamin had defaulted in paying the rent and therefore for the realisation of the arrears of rent the tenancy right had to be sold. The rent sale took place on 18th January 1932. It was confirmed on 11th March 1932 and a certificate issued in favour of the Zamindar who bought in the lands on 30th April 1933. After the estate purchased the occupancy rights, patta was sought to be granted to the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Venkateswara Ettu Naicker Vs. Ayyammal and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad367
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in C. M. A. No. 8 of 1945 allowing the appeal against the order of the District Munsif of Koilpatti in E. A. No. 233 of 1944 in O. S. No. 186 of 1939. The appellant is defendant 2, defendant 1 being the father. In execution of a mortgage decree in O. S. no. 186 of 1939 the properties of defendants 1 and 2 were brought for sale. Sale was held on 15th September 1943, respondent 1 here being the auction purchaser. The sale was confirmed on 18th October 1943. On 24th February 1944 the appellantfiled an application under Section 47 and Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C., for setting aside the sale held on 15th September 1943. The grounds which he urged for setting aside the sale were (1) that there was no service of notice on him at any stage of the execution, (2) that there was no publication of the sale proclamation in the village as required by Order 21, Rule 67, Civil P. C., and (3) that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhoddas Bhikardas Bhate Vs. Manga Bhika Bhole and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom277; (1950)52BOMLR286
Chagla C. J.1. Both these appeals raise an interesting question as to the applicability of Section 66, Civil P. C. Section 66 was enacted in order to prohibit a suit against the certified purchaser by a real owner on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of the real owner or on behalf of someone through whom the plaintiff claims, and this rule was enacted for reasons of public policy. It will be noticed that this section runs counter to the well-known equitable principle that the Court would give effect to the real and not to the nominal title. It is perfectly true that inasmuch as this section contravenes a well-established principle of equity, it must be strictly construed.2. The facts which give rise to these appeals are very brief. The plaintiff sued for possession alleging that he had been dispossessed some time before he filed the suit, and the suit was resisted by one of the defendants on the ground that he was a purchaser at a court-sale and a sale certificate had bee...
Tag this Judgment!S. Jawad Ali Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All227; [1950]18ITR95(All)
Malik, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad.2. There is an ancient waqf in Gorakhpur, known as the Imambara Waqf. The history of the waqf has been briefly set out in the statement of the case. A gentleman of the name of Syed Roshan Ali Shah was in his time well known for his piety, and various items of property were, from time to time, made a waqf of for the maintenance of an Imambara which had been built by him at Gorakhpur. Syed Roshan Ali Shah died in 1818. He had, however, executed a tamliknama under which the property came into the bauds of his nephew, Ahmad Ali Shah. Ahmad Ali Shah died in 1874, and he, in his turn, left a tamliknama of the year 1871 and the property came under that tamliknama to one, Wajid Ali Shah. Wajid Ali Shah died in 1915, and the property then came into the hands of the assessee, Jawad Ali Shah, who was his eldest son.3. From the statement of facts, mentioned above, it would appear ...
Tag this Judgment!Tika Ram Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All300
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. This is an application in revision by Tika Ram, a motor-lorry driver, who was convicted by the Additional City Magistrate of Kanpur under Section 304A, Penal Code and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and whose appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.2. The prosecution case was that on 30th May 1948 the applicant was driving lorry No. 2407 on the road running between Fazal Ganj and Sabzi Mandi in the city of Kanpur From the opposite side an ekka was coming. Two persons, namely, Sone Ram deceased and Ram Charan P. W. were also coming from that direction. They were by the side of the ekka towards its right. These persons, therefore, were practically in front of the lorry. According to the statement of the accused, he blew the horn. This statement has not been disbelieved by the lower appellate Court and has, therefore, to be taken as correct. When the horn was blown, Ram Charan P. W. wisely turned to the left, while Sone Ram de-ceased unfort...
Tag this Judgment!Rex Through Manzoor Hasan Vs. Mohd. Ilyas
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All312
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. This is an application for the transfer of a case on behalf of the accused Mohammad Ilyas who is being tried in the Court of Shri H.M. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, Under Section 420, Penal Code on the complaint of one Manzoor Hasan.2. I have considered the various points raised on behalf of the applicant in support of this application. The first of these points is that the learned Magistrate to whom the case had been transferred after a certain amount of evidence had been recorded in the Court of another Magistrate refused to record the evidence afresh although an application was made to him on behalf of the applicant praying for a trial de novo. Such an application was no doubt made on behalf of the applicant on 24th May 1949. But it appears that a fortnight earlier, on 10th May 1949, when the case first came up for hearing before the learned Magistrate, he put a definite question to the accused and enquired of him whether he claimed a de novo tri...
Tag this Judgment!The King Vs. Birdi Chand Moda
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1953Ori32
Panigrahi, J. 1. This is an appeal by Government against an order of acquittal passed by Mr. S K. Bagchi, Magistrate, First Class, Cuttack.2. The prosecution case is that P. W. 2, Krupasindhu Mohapatra, Sub-Inspector of Police (Enforcement Branch) searched the premises of the accused, Birdi Chandra Moda on 15-9-1947 and recovered a stock of cotton cloths from an underground chamber of the accused's bouse. The seizure list prepared at the time (Ex. 1) shows that a number of pieces of cloth had been kept by the accused in two trunks in an underground chamber of his house. The cloths recovered are -- a whole 'than' of white drill, pauplin Cambric shirting, voila, mull-mull and fents which could be converted into saree pieces. The accused is admittedly a wholesale dealer in cloths. The prosecution alleges that the seized stock of cloths was in excess of the accused's 'normal requirements' and that Clause 13 (2) of the Orissa Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order has been violated.3. The pros...
Tag this Judgment!V. Verabhadralu Vs. State
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori121
Narasimham, J.1. The petitioner was convicted of an offence under Rule 81 (4), Defence ofIndia Rules for contravention of Clause 18 (a),Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for sixmonths and fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months moreby a Deputy Magistrate, 1st class, Berhampur.The learned Magistrate further convicted thepetitioner under Rule 81 (4), Defence of IndiaRules for contravention of the Government ofOrissa Notification No. 11693 S.T. dated 23rdDecember 1943. But on appeal the learned Sessions Judge while maintaining the convictionand sentence for contravention of the CottonCloth and Yarn (Control) Order set aside theconviction for contravention of the GovernmentNotification mentioned above. 2. The facts as found by both the Courts are as follows: On 13th May 1946 at about 5 P. M. the petitioner was found proceeding in a motor car from Berhampur towards Ichhapur. The oar stopped at a Railway Le...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6765
- 6766
- 6767
- 6768
- 6769
- 6771
- 6772
- 6773
- 6774
- 6775
- Next ›
- Last »