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
BadruddIn and Sons Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal147
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of a Municipal Magistrate convicting the appellant of an offence under Section 386 (1) (a), Calcutta Municipal Act read with Schedule 19 of the Act.2. The charge was that the appellant con-ducted the business of electroplating or nickel plating at certain premises without the necessary permission or license from the Corporation.3. It seems that two previous prosecutions had been brought against the appellant and in each case he had pleaded guilty and was convicted. On this occasion, however, he pleaded not guilty. He was found guilty by the learned Magistrate, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 per diem over a period of time.4. Mr. Sudhangshu Mukherjee has taken a number of points and I shall deal with the points seriatim. He first contended that the trial was invalid by reason of the fact that the Magistrate on one day beard the case or arguments in the case in the absence of the accused person. It appears that on 19th May w...
Tag this Judgment!Sachindra Nath Vs. Jadunath Roy and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal156
ORDERHarries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a lower appellate Court dismissing an appeal from an order of a learned Munsif refusing to set aside a sale under Section 174, Bengal Tenancy Act.2. It will be unnecessary to deal with the facts of the case in any detail because the case was disposed of on a point of limitation.3. Admittedly the last day for preferring an appeal to the lower appellate Court was 22nd March 1948. On that date the appellant presented the appeal, but he did not deposit in Court the amount recoverable in execution as required by the proviso to Section 174 (5), Bengal Tenancy Act. The Court made the following order -- that the appeal be registered and the appellant was directed to deposit the amount recoverable in execution of the decree within limitation. The amount recoverable was not deposited for some little time and indeed could not have been deposited within limitation because the case was filed on the last possible day.4. Before the l...
Tag this Judgment!Virendra Kumar Tripathi Vs. the Crown
Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ3
Falshaw, J.1. This judgment will deal with three petitions under Section 491, Criminal P.C., Or. Misc. nos. 252, 253 and 254 of 1949. All the three petitions have been filed by one person, Mr. Virendra Kumar Tripathi, on behalf of three different persona who have been placed under detention by the Delhi authorities, namely, Mr. Mohammad Yamin, his wife Mrs. Sara Yamin, and Professor Yag Datt Sharma. All these persons were originally arrested and placed under detention by orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Delhi under Section 3, Punjab Public Safety Act of 1947 as extended to the Province of Delhi and the period of their detention has been subsequently extended by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi under Section 3, East Punjab Public Safety Act of 1949 which has also been extended to the Province of Delhi. In each case the petitioner has alleged that the detention of these persona is illegal on various grounds. In none of the petitions has Mr. Virendra Kumar Tripathi disclosed that he ha...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singh Vs. the Crown
Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ99
Harnam Singh, J.1. This order disposes of criminal Appeals nos. 623 and 682 of 1948 and Criminal Revision No. 180 of 1948.2. Piara Singh, son of Dalip Singh, caste Jat, resident of Mahal Khurd in Jullundur district, and Earn Singh son of Mahla Singh caste Jat, resident of Panch Malla in district Hissar, have been convicted under Sections 302 and 379, Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life each under Section 302, Penal Code, and to three yeats' rigorous imprisonment each under Section 379, Penal Code, Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently Piara Singh and Ram Singh appeal while the Crown has applied for the enhancement of the sentences imposed upon the appellants under Section 302, Penal Code,3. Briefly stated, the facts are that in the middle of October, 1947 Gurbachan Singh approver p, W. 14 was called to village Lambi Dhab by Bachan Singh of that village. He went there and on going to Lambi Dhab, be met Bam Singh and Piara Singh who were staying at the...
Tag this Judgment!Basangouda Vs. Yellappagouda
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1950PC24
LORD SIMONDS: This appeal which is brought from a judgment and decree, dated 31st March 1938, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, raises a question which has become increasingly familiar to their Lordships in recent years; it is whether the appellant is entitled to a share in certain joint family property, in respect of which he claims to be entitled to a half share with the respondent. 2. The facts are not now in dispute. One, Jammangouda, had three sons, Danappagouda, Doddakallangouda and Sannakallangouda. The first of these sons, Danappagouda, who died in 1872 had a son, Shiddangouda, who died in 1878, having married one Neelavva. She adopted to her late husband Basangouda, who was the plaintiff in the suit and is the present appellant. 3. The second son, Doddakallangouda, died in 1899, and he drops out of the picture altogether. 4. The third son, Sannakallangouda, died in 1898. He had a son, Shankargouda, who died in 1918, having married one, Yamnavva. She adopted in the yea...
Tag this Judgment!Rukn-ul-mulk Syed Abdul Wajid and ors. Vs. R. Visvanathan and ors.
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant55; AIR1950Mys55
ORDER1. The petitioners in these four petitions are the respondents in R.A. Nos. 104 and 109 of 1947-48. Two civil petitions are filed under Section 151 and Order 41, Rule 21, Civil P.C., praying that the Court may be pleased to set aside the ex parte decree passed respectively in the appeals. Two other petitions C.Ps. Nos. 50 and 49 of 49-50 relate respectively to the above appeals and are filed under Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of the C.P.C., for review of the judgment passed in the above appeals.2. Before discussing the merits of these petitions it is necessary to set out in brief the history of these cases. Before these appeals were posted for hearing, the parties filed an application in or about March 1948 to advance the hearing of the appeals for an early disposal of the same. The appeals were subsequently heard by a Bench consisting of the then Chief Justice and when the arguments were almost concluded, the parties took time with a view to effect a compromise. Later, they w...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Hirania Vs. Sm. Ram Piari
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All367
ORDERSeth, J. 1. Some property belonging to the applicants Tikamsingh and Jaipal Singh was sold in execution of a decree against them. The sale took place on 23rd August 1947. The judgment-debtors desired to have the sale set aside under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P. C. For that purpose they had to deposit the decretal amount and five per cent. extra for payment to the auction purchaser, and to make an application for setting aside the sale on or before 22nd September 1947. It was the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Koil, in which the deposit was to be made and to which the application was to be made. The Sub-Divisional Officer did not hold his Court either on 22nd September 1947, or on the following day. The money could not, therefore, be deposited in that Court on those two dates, nor could an application be made on those dates. A tender was, however, delivered by the judgment-debtors' pleader to some officer of that Court on 23rd September 1947 as appears from the order sheet of ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhondu Vs. the King
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1950PC30
SIR JOHN BEAUMONT: This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur dated 4th November 1947, whereby the High Court allowed an appeal against the acquittal of the appellant by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Buldana on 11th June 1947, on a charge of murder. The High Court convicted the appellant of murder and sentenced him to transportation for life. At the conclusion of the argument their Lordships announced that they would humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal be dismissed and they now give their reasons. 2. Special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was granted because it was suggested that the High Court had failed to give proper weight to the views expressed by the Board in the case of Sheo Swarup v. Emperor, 61 IA 398 : (AIR (21) 1934 PC 227 : 36 Cr. LJ 786). In that case the Board rejected the view which had prevailed in some High Courts in British India that in appeals against acquittal the powers of a High Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Martha Samadhanam David Vs. Sudha
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant26; AIR1950Mys26
ORDER1. This is a revision petition against the order in Criminal Revision petition 74/48-49 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore, confirming the order of discharge passed by the City Magistrate in C.C. No. 1157 of 1948-49 on the file of his Court.2. The complaint is one of bigamy, an offence punishable under Section 494, Penal Code. The accused a Hindu by birth was, after con-version into Christianity married to the complainant a Christian by birth. Both of them were later on converted into Hinduism by Aryasamaj and he then married a Hindu girl. The Magistrate discharged the accused holding that his second marriage after he was converted into Hinduism does not amount to an offence and this view was upheld in revision by the Sessions Judge. It is against this order of the Sessions Judge that the complainant has filed this revision petitions.3. The offence punishable under Section 494, Penal Code is based on the law of England. According to 24 and 25 Vict. Order 1...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Vs. Kanchan
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All340
Seth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought Under Section 172, U. P. Tenancy Act The suit was defended, inter alia, on the ground, that the revenue Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. This plea and other pleas raised in defence were overruled and the suit was decreed.2. Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of first instance, the defendant appealed to the lower appellate Court. The appeal was allowed and the decree of the Court of first instance was modified to this extent that the defendant was given the benefit Under Section 173, U. P. Tenancy Act. The decision of the lower appellate Court is attacked before me on one ground and one ground only, namely, that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.3. Section 265, U. P. Tenancy Act, provides that an appeal shall lie to the District Judge from the decree of an Assistant Collector of the first class in any suit included in Group 'A' of Schedule 4 in which the amount or value of the subject-matter of the appeal exceeds ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6781
- 6782
- 6783
- 6784
- 6785
- 6787
- 6788
- 6789
- 6790
- 6791
- Next ›
- Last »