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
M. Varadarajulu Pillai Vs. Gendapodinanniar and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad392
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Salem, granting permission to the decree, holder to bid at the sale of the properties ordered in E. P. No. 140 of 1947, in O. S. No. 6 of 1941. The decree is a mortgage decree and four items of the mortgaged properties are sought to be sold by virtue of the order for sale. The decree-holder filed E. A. No. 217 of 1948 for leave to bid under Order 21, Rule 72, Civil P. C. This application is supported by an affidavit by plaintiff 1 who states in para 3 of the affidavit that if the plaintiffs are not given leave to bid in the said auction sale, the properties might be sold for a low price and they are likely to suffer loss. This allegation was denied in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent 2 (judgment-debtor) where he stated that one of the items (Item No. 1) is a talkie theatre where one can expect certainly one kind of bidders and that two persons who are able to invest more than a ...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Suraneni Suryaprakasa Rayanimgar and anr. Vs. Dodla Balaramireddi ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad766
Govinda Menon, J. 1. Defendants 1 and 5 in O. S. No. 62 of 1943 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore, appeal against that portion of the learned Judge's decree by which relief under the Madras Agriculturists, Relief Act (IV [4] of 1938) had not been given in favour of defendant 5; and the question that arises for decision is whether defendant 5, admittedly a non-agriculturist is entitled to claim the benefits of Act IV [4] of 1938, in view of the circumstances of the present case. Defendant 1, the father and his three sons, defendants 2 to 4 are mortgagors of certain properties mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant 4 was not actually an executant of the document. The mortgage was dated 30th October 1929. Subsequently on 4th October 1935, defendant 1 paid Rs. 5 towards the mortgage and acknowledged the existence of the debt by EX. P-1 (a). In the meanwhile, on 12th June 1933, by EX. P-4, defendant 1 made a gift of this property in favour of his son-in-law...
Tag this Judgment!Dalu and anr. Vs. Khema and ors.
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1951Raj132
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is pltf's. appln. for revn. of an order dated 19-7-1949 of the learned Munsiff Chittor Betting aside the ex parte decree dated 4-4-1949. The facts are as follows:2. The pltf. appct. filed a suit for recovery of possession of certain land against the non-appct. Summonses were issued & a report was made that the process server went to the houses of the defts. on 17-2-1949 but they had all gone out to some other village.The process server again went to the village of the defts. & on 4-4-1949, he personally served all the defts. except Hema with summonses. As regards Hema, his report was that he (Hema) had gone to Udaipur and therefore the copy of the plaint was affixed to his house. The case came on for hearing on 4-4-1949 & because none of the defts. appeared it was decreed ex parte. The defts., however made an appln. for restoration on 29-4-1919 on the ground that they were not properly served with summons. The learned Munsiff held that all the defts. except Hema ...
Tag this Judgment!Heersingh and ors. Vs. Raj.
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1951Raj135
ORDERKaul, J.1. This is a revn. directed against an order of the learned Ses. J. Churu, confirming, in appeal, the convictions of the appcts. under Section 325, I.P.C. by the Munsif-Mag. Sardarsbahi. The Mag. had convicted thirteen accused persons, including the appcts. of an offence under Section 147, I.P.C. for rioting, sentencing each to 3 months R. I. On appeal the learned Ses. J. upheld the convictions of the present appcts. only under Section 325, I.P.C. while acquitting them as well as the remaining accused persons of the offence under Section 147, B. P.C. He, however, reduced the sentences of Hir Singh & Jasia accused persons from rigorous imprisonment to simple in view of their old ago.2. The case started on a report, made at Thana Sujangath, on 30 8-47 at 4 P. M. by Ganesha Brahmin & Sukharam Jat of Malusar alleging that, on the preceding night fifteen persons (named in the report), who were armed with guns & lathies broke into the house of Ganesha informant & after one of th...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ramalingaswami Naicker and ors. Vs. Venkitaswami Naicker
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad296
Yiswanatha Sastri, J.1. Two points have been argued by Mr. Thyagarajan, the learned advocate for the appellants in this second appeal. First he contends that there was no appeal to the lower appellate Court against the order of the District Munsif in E. P. No. 76 of 1944 dated 7th August 1945; secondly he argues that the learned District Judge erred in law in directing the sale of the properties in the order in which he has directed them to be sold. On the first-point I agree with the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant to this extent namely that if there is an order of Court merely settling the terms of the sale proclamation which does not in any way determine or affect the rights of parties, then the order is not open to appeal. But, if in settling the terms of sale proclamation the rights of the judgment debtors inter se who are the owners of the equity of redemption are affected by the order of the Court, then that would be a matter relating to the execution, disch...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Velugoti Sarbagna Kumara Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu, Raja ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad347
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Defendant 1 is the appellant in this second appeal which has been filed against a decree awarding possession and mesne profits to the plaintiffs. The property described in the suit consists of two items, Section no. 492 of the extent of 3 acres 20 cents of wet land and Section No. 12 of the extent of 7 acres 43 cents of dry land. The plaintiffs claim to have purchased the ryoti interest in the lands. Defendant 1 (the Zamindar of Venkatagiri) is the land-holder and his defence is that the holding has been validly sold for arrears of rent at his instance and purchased by him through his agent. Defendant 2 disclaims all interest in the suit, but his wife, defendant 3, claimed that she had been admitted to possession of the first item as a ryot by defendant 1 after his purchase at the rent sale. The judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge is very meagre and unsatisfactory and does not deal either with the evidence or with the points that arise for decision.2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubar Dayal Singhal Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All241
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against the acquittal of the respondent of an offence under Section 12, U. P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (Act XXII [22] of 1947).2. The respondent is the proprietor of a news agency called the Singhal News Agency, Aligrah. Admittedly, he did not allow one day's holiday in the week to his employees.3. The contention for the prosecution is that the respondent's failure to allow one day's holiday in a week to his employees amounted to a contravention of the provisions of Section 12, U. P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (Act XXII [22] of 1947). The defence of the accused was that he did not contravene these provisions in so far as his employees did not work for more than 48 hours in a week and that Section 12 really enjoned the giving of one day's holiday to such employees whose total period of employment in the week was less (Sic.) than 48 hours. The learned Magistrate accepted the respondent's contention...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlapat Moti Lal Vs. Commissioner, Income-tax
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All249; [1950]18ITR812(All)
Malik, C.J.1. This reference under Section 66 (2), Income-tax Act (XI [11] of 1922) has had a chequered history, It came up before several Benches from time to time but was not decided while the connected case No. 528 of 1936 which was a reference against the order made in the assessment year 1933-34 was decided in the year 1939.2. The assessment year in question was 1934-35 and the previous year was the calendar year 1933.3. The Union Indian Sugar Mills Co., Ltd., Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Mills) was wound up on a creditor's petition by a winding up order dated 28th May 1926. On 22nd November 1926, an application was filed by a partner ship, known as Kamlapat Moti Lal (hereinafter referred to as the firm) offering to take a mortgage of the Mill or in the alternative to purchase the same. The terms of such mortgage or of sale were given in the application filed on that date, On 25th February 1927, this Court approved the scheme of making a mortgage of the Mills to the firm...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Income-tax Assessment of Misrimal Gulabchand of Beawar for the ...
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All270
ORDERMalik, C.J.1. The facts of this case are very simple. The assessee, Mishri Mal Gulab Chand, is a Hindu undivided family doing business at Beawar, Ajmer-Merwara. The relevant assessment year is 1944-45. In the relevant account year, the assessee was a resident and ordinarily resident in British India. The asses-see had speculated individually and in partnership in various commodities in British India and also in Indian States. From its individual business carried on in British India the assessee had made a profit of Rs. 38,473, while from its individual business in the Indian States it suffered a loss of Rs. 25,391. In computing total income from business of the assessee the Income-tax Officer did not debit the loss suffered in Indian States. This decision was upheld by the Assistant Income-tax Commissioner. On appeal the Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision of the Income-tax Commissioner and held that the first proviso to Section 24 (1) of the Act did not apply. On an applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Kasudhan Vs. SheodIn Kasudhan and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All286
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of the lower appellate Court by which the plaintiff's suit for pre-emption was dismissed. It appears that on 19th October 1948, a sale deed in respect of anna 0-1-3 and odd share of zamindari in Mauza Mundela Misir was executed by defendant 2, in favour of defendant 1. The sale consideration mentioned in the deed was Rs. 2 500. Subsequently, defendant S, who is the own brother of defendant 2, and also a co-sharer in the property sold, managed to secure a sale deed from defendant 1, in lien of the same consideration, viz., Rs. 3,500. The plaintiff instituted a suit for pre-emption with the allegation that the second transfer executed by defendant I, the vendee under the sale deed of 19th October 1948, in favour of defendant 3, was made without obtaining the necessary permission of the Assistant Collector under Section 24, United Provinces Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act (XIV [14] of 1940) The plaintiff went on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6773
- 6774
- 6775
- 6776
- 6777
- 6779
- 6780
- 6781
- 6782
- 6783
- Next ›
- Last »