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
Verghes Cheriyan Vs. Sirkar Prosecutor
Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1950Ker14; 1950CriLJ658
Govinda Menon, J.1. This appeal is filed by the accused in sessions Case no. 13 of 1124 on the file of the Alleppey Sessions Court. He was-driving a motor car registered as C. S no. 2556' on the night of 10-7-1122 along the Aroor-Alleppey road and at about 8-Bo P.M. the oar ran over one Sridharan pillai who died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. He was, therefore, charged with the offences of having driven1 a motor vehicle on a public way rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life and of having oaused the death of Sridharan Pillai by his rash and negligent act of driving. These ar& offences falling under S3.377 and 304, Travancore Penal Code. The appellant was found guilty under both the sections and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50. This appeal is filed against the said conviction and sentence.2. The oar was proceeding north to south on a straight road and Sridharan Pillai was coming in the opposite direc...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kalyanam Veerabhadrayya
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad243
ORDER1. These are applications under Section 491, Criminal P. C., to issue directions in the nature of habeas corpus directing the release of the petitioners who were detained under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, (Act I [1] of 1947). As these petitions raised some common questions of law, we thought it convenient to hear and dispose of these questions before considering the merits of each application. The orders of detention under the Act in all the petitions except four, Cri. M. Ps. Nos. 1645 and 1651 of 1949, 1527 and 1611 of 1949 were passed after 12th March 1948, and according to the petitioners on the date on which the orders of detention in these cases were passed, the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, ceased to be in force and that therefore the orders of detention were without authority and were illegal.2. The maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947 (Madras Act I [1] of 1947), hereinafter called 'the Act' in the course of this judgment, received the...
Tag this Judgment!Satdeo and anr. Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All284
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed in appeal by the Sessions Judge of Azamgarh dismissing the appeal of the applicants against their conviction by a Magistrate under Section 19 (f), Arms Act and a sentence of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution alleged that a gun and a spear were recovered from the house of the applicants who were own brothers. The gun was lying concealed under a heap of bhusa and the spear was recovered from underneath a behri (a big earthen vessel for storing grain). The applicants admittedly had no licence to keep arms. The defence was that the alleged arms were not recovered from their house. The prosecution-story has been believed by both the Courts below and I see no reason to differ from their conclusions on the facts of the case.3. The question, however, that has been raised before me is whether, assuming that the prosecution case was true, the two applicants could be convicted. It is admitted that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Hajee Mahboob Bux Ehhan Illahi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1950]18ITR72(All)
These are two applications under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The two applications under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act were sent by post from Allahabad to the appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench, on the 1st of December, 1945. On the same day a money order of Rs. 200 was also sent. The packages containing the applications were received on the 4th of December, 1945, but the money order of was received on the 7th of December, 1945. The period of sixty days from the date of service of the notice expired on the 5th of December, 1945. The appellate Tribunal thereupon held that the applications had not been received within time and could not be entertained. They relied on the language of section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act which is as follows :-'Within sixty days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under sub-section (4) of section 33 the assessee or the commissioner may, by application in the prescribed form, accompanied where applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!King Vs. Arakhit Alias Jada Moharana
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1953Ori30
Panigrahi, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 341, Criminal P. C. by the Magistrate, First Class, Aska, in a preliminary enquiry that was conducted by him against one Arakhit alias Jada Moharana, a deaf and dumb person, for an alleged offence under Section 302, I. P. C. The Magistrate, while holding the enquiry, was satisfied that the accused Arakhit was incapable of making a defence as he was unable to understand the nature of the proceedings pending against him. The Magistrate examined the maternal aunt of the accused, one Bayani Maharanani, the elder sister of the accused Sunna Maharanani; & a neighbour Natabar Panda who lives 60 to 60 cubits away from the house of the accused. All these witnesses say that the accused is deaf and dumb since his birth, that he cannot understand anything even when it is expressed by gestures and that he is capable of understanding only a very few things by gestures such as directions to come, go, sit, stand and eat, but nothing else. The Magistra...
Tag this Judgment!Harihar Mahapatra and ors. Vs. Hari Otha and ors.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori257
Jagannadhadas, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants in this second appeal. They own only about 1/3rd of the lands in Inam village called Agulpada. Defendants 1 to 4 are owners of lands in the neighbouring village of Gopinathpur which also is an Inam village. They have been sued as representing all the Inamdars of that village. Defendant 5 is the Government of Orissa represented by the Collector of Ganjam. The rest of the lands admittedly belong to the Dharakote Estate. The dispute relates to the right of the plaintiffs to irrigate their lands from the waters of a channel known as Kochianala, by raising a cross dam on it. This Nala runs through the two villages of Gopinathpur and Agulpada. According to the evidence of one of the plaintiffs' witnesses, P. W. 3, Kochianala starts in Government villages and goes to Government villages, but passes through these two Inam villages. The case of the plaintiffs is that the Kochianala is the irrigation source of the wet lands in the Inam, village o...
Tag this Judgment!Amru S/O Rakha Vs. the Crown
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1950P& H159; 1950CriLJ747
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal by Amru, aged 18, who has been convicted and sentenced to transportation for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur.2. On 23rd June 1944, at about sunset, Amru convict and Ratan Singh attacked the deceased Bhola near the shops of Chhaju and Bebari, who are prosecution witnesses in this case, using a kirpan and a barchha. Bhola had as many as 24 injuries and according to the doctor he must have died almost instantaneously. The first) information report was lodged by Sucheta a bro- ther of the deceased, on the same day at about 11-30 p. M. Ratan 8ingh was arrested but Amru absconded. Ratan Singh was tried and sentenced to death and that sentence was confirmed by the High Court at Lahore. Amru was arrested later on and he was put up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Jullundur and was convicted as I have said before and sentenced to transportation for life.3. The motive for the crime is stated to be the gift by a widow Mahan K...
Tag this Judgment!Sankala Ramaswami and ors. Vs. Godavarthi Jagannathaswami
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad369
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The defendants are the petitioners in these two revision petitions which arise in two suits instituted for possession and mesne profits, the main defence being that the suit properties, i.e., certain lands, form part of an 'estate' as defined in the Madras Estates Land Act, and therefore civil Courts have no jurisdiction to try the suits. The suits relate to three items of lands measuring on the whole 7 acres 33 cents in Sankarashanapuram Agraharam. The plaintiff claims to be a minor inamdar of these lands and has instituted the suits for recovery of possession and profits. The village of Sankarashanapuram is an Agraharam and it would be an 'estate,' within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act by virtue of the latest amendment whereby Explanation 1 has been incorporated under Act, II [2] of 1945.2. The learned District Munsif held that the lands which are covered by the suits form part of an 'estate' under the Madras Estates Land Act and the civil Courts...
Tag this Judgment!Chalavadi Narasimham and anr. Vs. Chalvadi Ramayya and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad492
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The present appeal, purporting to be under Section 75, Provincial Insolvency Act, is against the order passed by the District Judge of Nellore in an application filed by the appellants (insolvents) under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, praying that a certain composition scheme be declared to be pending, that two interlocutory applications which were disposed of be reopened, and that Chalvadi Ramayya, the respondent, be removed from the schedule of creditors and directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 386-10-8 into Court. At the end of Para. 10 of his judgment, the learned District Judge dismissed the application as clearly untenable. 2. The main question argued before me is a preliminary one; whether an appeal lies on the ground that the insolvent has merely a spes and no legal interest in the property and is not therefore a person aggrieved. Reference has been made to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Harirao v. Official Assignee, Madras, 49 Mad. 461 : A. I. R. 1926 Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Gauri Shanker Rai and ors. Vs. Shri Thakur Ji Ram Chandra Maharaj ...
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All244
Agarwala, J.1. This is a plaintiffs, appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below on the ground that the plaintiffs did not possess any preferential right of pre-emption as against the vendee.2. It appears that the property in dispute is situated in a sub-division No. 4 of Mahal Jageshar Rai in village Barua Khurd in the district of Ghazipur. The defendants second set, namely, defendants 2 to 4, executed a sale deed of the property in favour of defendant No. 1, the defendant first set, for an ostensible sale consideration of Rs. 2000. The plaintiffs appellants, who are admittedly co-sharers in the mahal, brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal for pre-emption on the ground that they were co-sharers in sub-division No. 4 in which the property was situated, while the vendees were not co-sharers in that sub-division, though they were co-sharers in the other sub-division No. 1 of the same mahal. They, therefore, claimed tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6766
- 6767
- 6768
- 6769
- 6770
- 6772
- 6773
- 6774
- 6775
- 6776
- Next ›
- Last »