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
Sanmukhsingh and Another Vs. the King
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1950PC31
LORD SIMONDS: Their Lordships, having at the conclusion of the hearing intimated that they would humbly advise His Majesty to dismiss this appeal, now give their reasons. 2. This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the Chief Court of Sind, in its Appellate Criminal Jurisdiction, dated 18th July 1945, which summarily dismissed the appeal of the appellants from the conviction and sentences passed on them on 24th March 1945, by a Judge of the said Court, exercising Sessions Court jurisdiction, who, in accordance with the majority verdict of a jury, found (1) both of them guilty of being parties to a criminal conspiracy to cheat one Rochiram Asoomal Canser (S. 120B read with S. 420, Penal Code); (2) the first appellant guilty of having, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, forged two documents (referred to in the Record as exs. A and b) purporting to be an agreement in duplicate executed at Lahore by a fictitious person called Dr. S. C. Rao, described therein as "General Manager...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Menon Vs. the King
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1950PC19
LORD REID: In 1934 the appellant was appointed to the Indian Civil Service. During 1943 he was employed as Additional District Magistrate at Midnapore and while so employed he was concerned in the investigation of a charge of bribery against Dr. Panda a sub-assistant surgeon of the Bengal Nagpur Railway. While the case against Dr. Panda was still under investigation the appellant was transferred from Midnapcre and he went to Calcutta where he stayed for a time. It was alleged that on 20th December 1943, while in Calcutta he received a bribe from Dr. Panda and he was suspended. On 6th July 1945, the following Order was made by the Governor of Bengal: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (1) (b) and sub-s. (2) of S. 197, Criminal P. C. (Act V [5] of 1898) the Governor is pleased to accord sanction to the prosecution of Mr. T. A. Menon of the Indian Civil Service under suspension in respect of (a) an offence under S. 161, Penal Code. (b) an offence under S. 165, Penal Code. (c)...
Tag this Judgment!Ratilal Nathubhai and anr. Vs. Rasiklal Maganlal and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom326; (1950)52BOMLR338
Chagla, C.J.1. The question of law that arises in this second appeal is whether a Full Bench decision of this Court in Sitaram Laxmanrao v. Dharmasukhram Tansukhram 51 Bom. 971: A.I.R 1927 Bom. 487 , is no longer good law in view of the decision of the Privy Council in Puran Chand v. Monmotho Nath 55 I. A. 81: A. I. R 1928 P. C. 38.2. A few facts may be stated in order to understand the point of law that has been debated at the bar. The plaintiffs are vendees of a certain property and the property was sold to them by one Vinodrai and Sumantrai who executed a power of attorney on 20th March 1946, in favour of one Indulal, and it was in pursuance of this power of attorney that Indulal executed the sale in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants, who were the tenants of the vendors, challenged the plaintiffs' title to the property in the suit which the plaintiffs filed for ejectment of the defendants and for possession of the property.3. The contention of Mr. Shah on behalf of the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Debi Bux Singh Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All299
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. A revision application was filed on behalf of the applicant on 3rd August 1949. At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, an order was made that the record be sent for at the applicant's expense. When the case was listed again on 10th August 1949, it was discovered that the cost had not been paid. Counsel was also not present. I then examined with care the judgment of the Court and came to the conclusion that there was no force in the application and rejected it. Later on, an application was made on behalf of the applicant for the restoration of the revision application. That was rejected by me on 8th September 1949. Thereafter, a second revision application was filed on behalf of the applicant and that too was rejected by me on 19th September 1949.2. A fresh application has now been presented praying that the revision application be restored. I have perused the affidavit which shows the circumstances in which counsel for the applicant had no inform...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Jalil Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All550
Misra, J.1. An office report has raised the question whether these two revision applications can be heard & disposed of by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court.2. One M. A. Jalil was convicted in two cases for offences under Sections 420, 420/511 & 420, 406, Penal Code & sentenced to imprisonment as well as fine. He preferred two appeals which were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge of Bareilly. These two revision applications, were filed by M. A. Jalil against the orders passed by learned Sessions Judge in his appeals. The revision applications were filed at Allahabad, & the petitioner engaged Sir Iqbal Ahmad to argue them on his behalf.3. Sir Iqbal Ahmad was a Judge of the old Allahabad High Court for a number of years, & retired as the Chief justice of that Court. Since his retirement he resumed practice at the Bar. At the time of his appointment as a Judge of the old High Court, he had to give an undertaking that after his retirement he would not practise in that Court or in a ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagchand Vs. Mt. Jeetbai
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1951Raj147
1. This is a pltff's. appeal against the appellate judgment & decree of the learned Dist. J., Udaipur, dated 24-7-47 & arises out of the following circumstances;2. The pltf.'s firm, which carried on business at Bombay, obtained an ex parte decree from the Small Cause Ct. Bombay, against Heeralal Lodha of Udaipur, for a sum of rs. 1,467-6-6 including cost. The decree awarded future interest on Rs. 1200 at the rate of Bs. 6 per annum. This decree is dated 6-5.1937. The pltf. brought the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,467-5-6 the decretal amount & Rs. 301-10-6, interest for 4 years 2 months & 9 days at the rate awarded by the decree, in the Ct. ofCity Munsiff, Udaipur. The entire sum claimed was Rs. 1769 in standard coin, which comes to Rs. 2388 20 in Udaipur Coin.3. Heeralal died during the pendency of the suit & resp. Mt. Jeet Bai, his widow was brought on the record as his legal representative. It was pleaded by the deft, that he was a non-resident foreigner & that an ex parts ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Singh Vs. L. Kunwar Sen
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All366
ORDERSeth, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision arising out of a suit brought Under Section. 5(4), U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (III [3] of 1947) for fixation of rent. The defendant was occupying the accommodation on an agreed rental of Rs. 15/- per month. The lease was for a period of three years. The plaintiff was not satisfied with the agreed rent, and, therefore, he instituted the suit. The Court below has fixed the rent at Rs. 18/- per month.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the suit was not maintainable, because if a landlord desires to enhance the rent, he may do so by giving a notice Under Section 5 (2) of the Act, and that a suit is maintainable only when a landlord claims that the reasonable annual rent is too inadequate or when a tenant claims that the reasonable annual rent is excessive.3. The learned counsel has overlooked another portion of Clause (4), according to which, where there is no municipal assess...
Tag this Judgment!Tajju Khan Vs. Mazhar Khan
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All614
Kidwai, J.1. On 25-1-1941, Tajju Khan, plff. executed a deed of gift in favour of Mazhar Khan, deft. who is his own brother & delivered possession of the property to the donee. Subsequently plff. instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises to obtain possession of the gifted property by, among other things, revocation of the deed of gift. The deft, pleaded that the gift was not revocable. The trial Court accepted the plff's, claim & decreed the suit. On appeal, the learned Civil Judge of Fyzabad held that the parties were within the prohibited degrees of relationship & that, consequently, the gift could not be revoked. He accordingly allowed the appeal &dismissed; the suit. The plff. has now come up in second appeal.2. The only contention pressed by Mr. Hyder Husain, for the appellant, was that the donor & the donee being both of the same sex could not be said to be related within the prohibited degrees & that, therefore, the gift was revocable. The only case relating to this po...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Padmavati Jemma Vs. Ramchandra Ananga Bhim Deo and ors.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori248
Narasimham, J.1. The pltf. claims to be the illegitimate daughter of Sri Krupamaya Anauga Bhima Deo, the late Zamindar of Bodokhemidi estate which is an impartible estate under the Madras Impartible Estates Act, 1904. The principal deft. (deft. 1) is the present Zimindar of Bodokhemidi estate & is the legitimate son of Sri Krupamaya Ananga Bhima Deo. The other defts. are said to be tenants established on the suit lands by deft. 1. The pltf's case was that her father gave her certain landed property described in Schedule 'a' of the plaint situated in village Kattubati & known as 'Kheta Dholia' lands for her maintenance & that deft, l wrongfully resumed these lands & settled them with the other defts. She, therefore, prayed for being put in possession of the suit lands or eke for a decree directing deft, l to pay her either the value of the lands or else the annual Rajabhagam (rent) due from these lands. There was also an alternative prayer for a decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!A.M.M. Sayed Abdul Cader Vs. Commr. of Income-tax
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad715; [1950]18ITR310(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The Appellate Tribunal referred to us the following question under Section 66 (l), Income-tax Act:'Whether in the circumstances of the case the applicant can be held to be a 'resident' in British India in the 'previous year' under Section 4-A (a) (iii) on the ground that he was in British India in the previous year otherwise than on an occasional or casual visit.' The relevant clause of the section referred to in the question is as follows:'Section 4A (a) (iii) For the purpose of this Act any individual is resident in British India in any year if he having within 4 years preceding that year been in British India for a period of or for periods amounting in all to 365 days or more, is in British India for any time in that year otherwise than on occasional or casual visit.'The facts found or admitted are: the assessee, who was once a resident of Authoor, a village in the Tirunelveli district, left the place several years ago and went to Ceylon where be married a Ce...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6780
- 6781
- 6782
- 6783
- 6784
- 6786
- 6787
- 6788
- 6789
- 6790
- Next ›
- Last »