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
Dalsukhrai Jaidayal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and C.P. and Berar
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All255; [1950]18ITR546(All)
Malik, C.J.1. This is one of the many cases that have recently come up before us, in which a great deal of difficulty has been caused by reason of the Appellate Tribunal not having clearly found the facts in its appellate order or not having clearly set out the facts in the statement of the case.2. The assessee, a Hindu undivided family, has been carrying on business for many years The head office of the business is at Banaras with two other branches in the same city. The assessee has also a branch in Calcutta. At the head office at Banaras wholesale business is done in Benarsi cloth in the name of Dalsukhrai Jaidayal. At Lakhi Chabutra branch, Banaras, wholesale business is done in cotton cloth in the name of Jaidayal Gajanand. The other branch at Thatheri Bazar, Banaras, does business in silk in the name of Gajanand Balmukund. The branch in Calcutta does business in the name of Jaidayal Gajanand. In the words of the Tribunal, this branch launched forth in fairly large speculations in...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasad and ors. Vs. Ghasi Ram
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All314
Malik, C.J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal One Sirdhari had four sons and he left four houses. Munni alias Munna, the eldest of the four sons, executed a mortgage on 27th January 1927, in favour of one Ghasi Ram. The mortgagor purported to mortgage his one-fourth share in the four houses left by his father, Girdhari, Sibhoo, another son of Girdhari, made a mortgage on 23rd July 1928 of one whole house in favour of Mt. Rukmani. This mortgagee filed a suit No. 195 of 1931 on the basis of the mortgage, obtained a decree, had the house sold and purchased it herself. She is dead now and is represented by Durga Parshad, Gopi Nath and Zalim Ram. When Ghasi Ram filed his suit No. 30 of 1939 on the basis of the mortgage elated 27th January 1927, he impleaded, besides his mortgagor, the other descendants of Girdhari and also the legal representatives of Mt. Rukmani. The case of the mortgagee was that his mortgagor had a one-fourth share in the four houses and the mortgagee was therefore entitle...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Ram Dayal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P. and Berar
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All322; [1950]18ITR375(All)
Malik, C.J. 1. These two references are Under Section 66 (2), Income-tax Act, in the matter of the income-tax assessment of Messrs. Jagannatb Ramdayal of Kanpur. 2. The same question has been referred to us for opinion in both these cases. The question referred is as follows: 'Whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 92,188/- being the balance of Rs. 1,56,657/- less Rs. 64,469/- already taxed, or any part thereof may be deemed in law to be the income, profits or gains of the 'previous year' which can be assessed to income-tax in the assessment year 1938-1939?'3. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The assessment year in question is 1938-1939 and the account year began on 28th September 1936 and ended on some date in September 1937. The assessee carries on business in Kanpur. 4. This Hindu undivided family was a partner in the Upper Indian Ghorwari Collieries at Hirdaigarh in the Central Provinces (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collieries'). The share of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Rup Vs. the Crown
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1951CriLJ930
Soni, J.1. Our learned brother Harnam Singh J. has referred this case to a larger Bench for a further consideration of the point of law involved in it. The facts found by our learned brother are as follows.2. Ram Rup was the driver of motor lorry No. PBC-413 belonging to the Rohtak Bus Company. On 16-2-1948, the lorry driven by Earn Rup carrying some 25 or 26 passengers arrived at Mahem from Hansi side. Hari Parkash, son of one of the Directors of the Rohtak Bus Co. took his seat in the lorry by the side of the driver. After the lorry started from Mahem, Ram Rup driver gave the wheel of the bus to Hari Parkash who began to drive it. As Hari Parkash was a minor and not well trained in driving, Earn Lal P. W. 7 who was one of the passengers sitting in the lorry objected to its being driven by Hari Parkash. No heed was paid to his objection. Hari Parkash stopped driving for a while but he again took up the wheel and went on driving. When the bus passed through village Bahu Akbarpur, Hari ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A.K. Gopalan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad259
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This matter arises from a petition under Section 56l(A), Criminal P. C., filed by one A. K. Gopalan, convicted in S. C. No. 23 of 1948 on the file of the Sessions Judge, North Malabar and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. He has filed, criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1948 against that conviction and sentence, and that appeal is pending in this Court. His complaint is that when his advocate went on 25th August 1949 to interview him in Cuddalore Central Jail to take instructions from him regarding this appeal, a police officer of the C.I D. Department insisted on being present at the interview and taking verbatim shorthand notes of what he was telling the vakil, and that all this is illegal and that if the C. I. D. Officer takes such notes be would communicate them to his superior officers and to the counsel on the opposite side, thus breaking the rules regarding the confidential nature of such communications. He prays, therefore, that either this Court...
Tag this Judgment!Ellappa Goundan and ors. Vs. Ellappa Goundan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad409
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The six petitioners in this case have all been convicted under Section 500, Penal Code, by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Chingleput, and have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each, or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months each.2. I have perused the entire records and heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and see no reason whatever to interfere in revision. The prosecution had proved that these petitioners had assembled a panchayat of persons belonging to all the castes of the village, and not merely of the Vanniar caste, to which they and P. W. 1 belong, and had stated at that panchayat that P. W. 1's married daughter, living: in his house, was having illicit intimacy with an Adidravida and that he would not drive her out as requested and so should be outcasted and the village washerman and barber prevented from rendering service to him and the Amman koil honours, given to him till then, as Periathanakar, should n...
Tag this Judgment!C.N. Annadurai Vs. the Government of the Province of Madras
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1950)2MLJ189
1. The petitioner is the editor and publisher of 'Dravida Nadu', a Tamil Weekly which is printed at and issued from Kancheepuram. He seeks to set aside the order of the Provincial Government, dated 25th May, 1949, directing him to deposit with the District Magistrate, Chingleput, on or before the 25th June, 1949, security to the amount of Rs. 3,000. The order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7(3) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, on the ground that the issues of the petitioner's journal dated 4th April, 1948If in spite of belonging to the same group and kinship being claimed on the basis of recognising the same flag and belonging to the same party, if in spite of worthy persons praising him as the Gandhi of Tamilnad, it should happen that the intrigue and the amazing enmity and communal frenzy of a selfish group will keep on attacking him, then we ask in What way is the Congress Ramaswarm in any far better position than the Dravida Ramaswami.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuswami Goundan and anr. Vs. Dhanushkodi Nadar and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad734
Govinda Menon, J.1. Defendants 1 and 3 in O. S. No. 153 of 1946 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Coimbatore, appeal against the decree of the learned Judge directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 2200 with future interest and costs to the plaintiff. There is a memorandum of cross objections by the plaintiff, objecting tothe dismissal of his suit with regard to his claim for Rs. 3500.2. The plaintiff claimed that he was the proprietor of a hotel by name, The Star Biriyani and Meals Hotel in Coimbatore which was run in his own name and with big own funds. The ownership of the building was in defendant 1, though originally the transactions were with both defendants 1 and 3. On the basis of the landlord's right to the building in which the plaintiff was conducting his hotel, defendant 1 filed O. S.No. 271 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Coimbatore, impleading only defendant 2 herein as a party defendant. The basis of the claim of defendant 1 was that the hotel...
Tag this Judgment!Dravida Nadu, a Tamil Weekly Vs. the Government of the Province of Mad ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad742
ORDER1. The petitioner is the editor and publisher of 'Dravida Nadu,' a Tamil Weekly which is printed at and issued from Kanchee-Puram. He seeks to set aside the order of the Provincial Government dated 26th May 1949 directing him to deposit with the District Magistrate, Chingleput on or before 25th June 1949 security to the amount of Rs. 3,000. The order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7(3), Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, on the ground that the issues of the petitioner's journal dated 4th April 1948 and 18th April 1948 contained matter of the nature described in Section 4(1)(h) of the said Act. A translation in English of the offending passages from the two issues mentioned above was appended to the order. This application has been made under Section 23 of the Act and what this Court has to decide is whether the news, paper in respect of which the order was made did or did not contain any words of the nature described in Section 4 (1) (h) of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Sris Chandra Nandy Vs. Sm. Annapurna Ray
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal173
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad directing that the evidence of the plaintiff's husband be taken on commission.2. The plaintiff who is a lady had already given evidence on commission in the suit and it is suggested that her husband was her legal adviser and a most important witness in the case. The defence were naturally anxious to cross examine this witness in open Court. But an application was made for the issue of a commission on the ground that the witness was unfit to give evidence.3 An affidavit of the plaintiff was filed in support of the application and a medical certificate of some medical practitioner was also tendered.4. There can be no doubt that the learned Judge in coming to the conclusion that a commission should issue was influenced by this medical certificate. In his order he states :'Heard the learned lawyers of both parties and perused the petition of the plaintiff of date supported by a medical...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6778
- 6779
- 6780
- 6781
- 6782
- 6784
- 6785
- 6786
- 6787
- 6788
- Next ›
- Last »