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
Subbegowda and ors. Vs. H.L. Keshava Murthy and ors.
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant6; AIR1950Mys6
Balakrishnaiya, J. 1. This appeal arises out of O.S.No. 632 of 1944-45 filed by respondent 1 in the Court of the Munsiff of Hassan. Respondent-plaintiff 1 and defendants 7 and 8 are the sons of one Lakshminaranappa. The suit property is ancestral to the plaintiff and defendants 7 and 8 and the suit is for possession of the suit property both on his own behalf and on behalf of defendants 7 and 8, with mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession. 2. It is common case that the property was acquired by Krishnappa, the grandfather of the plaintiff, who claims half of the same under the will of the grandfather and one sixth as the heir to his father. He claims two-third share and the remaining on-third is said to belong to defendants 7 and 8 together. His mother, Venkamma, who claimed the property under a gift deed from her father-in-law, Krishnappa, was in possession and enjoyment even during the life-time of Lakshminaranappa, her husband, and owing to defaul...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Har Dut Singh Vs. Deep NaraIn Prasad Pandey and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All303
Malik, C.J. 1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of an application for amendment of the decree under Section 8, U. P. Debt Redemption Act. The appellant, Hari Har Dut Singh executed a mortgage of joint family properties on the basis of which mortgage a suit was filed by the creditor. Shyam Narain, minor son of the appellant, was also impleaded along with the appellant as a defendant to the suit. The trial Court decreed the suit only against the half share of the property, but the suit was decreed in full by this Court in appeal. The decision of this Court was affirmed by the Privy Council.2. On 9th April 1943, the appellant made an application under Section 8, Debt Redemption Act, praying that as he was an agriculturist within the meaning of that Act, the decree might be amended according to the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. The learned Civil Judge dismissed this application on the ground that the appellant was liable to pay only half the amount and that since...
Tag this Judgment!Suryapal Singh Creditor No. 5 Vs. Kr. Nahar Singh and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All311
Malik, C.J. 1. This appeal hag been filed by creditor No. 5 of the landlords applicants, who was classed as a secured creditor in class III. Along with him certain other creditors who had mortgages in their favour were also placed in the same class. The decision of the learned Special Judge is dated 30th May 1943. The limitation for filing an appeal against that decision expired on 6th September 1943. The appeal was filed two days beyond time on 8th September 1943, but the other secured creditors were not impleaded as parties to this appeal. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned on 28th July 1944. It was not till 9th December 1944 that an application purporting to be an application under Order l, Rule 10, Order 41, Rule 33, and Section 151, Civil P. C., was filed to implead the Satya Narain Bank Limited, Babu Lal, Risal Singh and others and Nemi Chand. In the affidavit filed in support of the application no facts are given which would justify the extension of the period of limita...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Nanda Vs. Sm. Annapurna Dei
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori160
Ray, C.J.1. This is an application directed against an order of the District Judge of Cuttack, elated the 13th of October, 1949, rejecting the petitioner's prayer to withhold the granting of Succession Certificate to the Opposite Party No. 2.2. The history of the litigation is that one Kartick Chandra Nanda died leaving an estate behind, which comprised both moveable and immoveable properties and considerable amount of debts due to him and also bank deposits. Shortly after his death, the opposite party SM. Annapurna Debi put in a petition for issue of a Succession Certificate for collection of the debts due to the estate of the deceased. She claimed to be the only daughter and therefore the only heir of Kartick. She filed that application on the 4th of October, 1947. She did not cite the petitioner Gangadhar Nanda as one of the near relatives but had cited several other people. Before service of noticed on the persons cited was complete, this Gangadhar intervened in the proceeding star...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Mohd. HusaIn Vs. Raja Babu Kothiari
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj23
ORDERRanawat, J.1. This is a revision petition filed on behalf of the judgment-debtor, Captain Sardar Syed Mohammad Husain against an order of the Munsif at Dholpur, dated 23-3-1949, rejecting his review petition on the ground that the predecessor-in-office of the Munsif, who made the order, did not issue a proper notice under Order 47, Rule 4(2), proviso (a), Civil P. C.2. Mr. shyamsingh, the Munsif at Dholpur, made an order of attachment of some properties of the judgment-debtor in execution of a decree against him. of Raja Babu Kothiari for an amount of Rs. 8309/- on 20-1-1949. The judgment-debtor moved a review petition against the attachment order before Mr. Shyamsingh on 2-2-1949 and the learned Munsif alter getting it scrutinised by the office ordered issue of a notice on the opposite party on 10-2-1949. He was transferred and in his place Mr. Satguru Prasad was appointed Munsif on 10-2-1949. The review petition was then heard by Mr. Satguru Prasad who rejected it, mainly becaus...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.N.N. Sankaralinga Ayyar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad610; [1950]18ITR194(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This reference raises a very plain question, viz., whether in the circumstances and on the facts of this case, the two sums of Rs. 18,991 and Rs. 105 received by the respondent as Managing Directors' remuneration and Director's sitting fees from the Indo Commercial Bank could be said to be a part of the income of the Hindu undivided family of which he was the karta. 2. The assessment was made on the basis that the family of which Mr. Sankaralinga Aiyar was the karta or the manager was an undivided Hindu family. For the assessment year 1943-44 Mr. Sankaralinga Aiyar claimed that the remuneration of Rs. 18,991 which he received as the Managing Director of the Indo Commercial Bank and a sum of Rs. 105 which he received as Director's sitting fees, were his personal earnings and not property belonging to the undivided Hindu family of which he has been the head and the manager. The only circumstance relied on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax to declare these t...
Tag this Judgment!Korapolu Shedthi Vs. Gangayya Shetty (Died) and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad656
1. The decree-holder is the appellant. He obtained a mortgage decree on 8th January 1937 in O. S. No. 5 of 1934 on the file of the District Munsif'a Court of Karkal. That decree was scaled down under Madras Act IV 4 of 1938 and an appeal against that amended decree was dismissed on 16th January 1940. The decree-holder thereafter filed R. E. P. No. 411 of 1941 for execution of the decree. That was on 26th March 1941. The judgment-debtors filed R. E. A. No. 602 of 1941 in the said E. P. No. 411 of 1941 on 25th August 1941, and they pleaded that there was an adjustment of the decree as a result of which, the decree was not to be executed for a period of three years, and thereafter payment of a smaller sum should be accepted in complete satisfaction. They also filed a counter to the main execution petition reiterating the same objections which they had set forth in their own application R. E. A. No. 602 of 1941. The executing Court decided against the judgment-debtors and dismissed their a...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah K.V. Narasimha Rao Bahadur, Zamindar of Aswaraopet Vs. Commi ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad808; [1950]18ITR181(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The following question was referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench:'Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the finding of the Bench that the appellant is at resident within the meaning of Section 4-A (b), Income-tax Act is tenable in law?' The assessee is a Hindu undivided family whose manager is Rajah Kandimalla Venkatarama Narasimha Rao Bahadur, the Zamindar of Aswaraopet. He is a permanent resident of Aswaraopet in the Nizam's State. For the accounting year 1938-89 he was asked to pay income-tax on a total income of Rs. 14,630 which consisted of Rs. 180 being interest accrued in money-lending business. Out of Rs. 19,000 being the net sale proceeds of paddy, net grazing fees and net sale proceeds of tobacco, allowing the statutory deduction of as. 4500, the balance of Rs. 14,500 was treated as income from sources other than agricultural income from outside British India to which the interest from money-lending business wa...
Tag this Judgment!Gajendra Duary and ors. Vs. the King
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal200
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Magistrate directing certain accused persons to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 600 with two sureties of like amount for keeping the peace until the conclusion of a certain enquiry.2. The petitioners were being prosecuted under Section 110, Criminal P. C. The learned Magistrate was hearing the case in camp. Whilst the case was proceeding there was an outcry that there was a fire in a neighbouring house and everybody seems to have run out including the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate in his judgment says that he learnt from some man and two females who were inmates of a hut which was burning that they had seen one Tari running out from behind the hut as soon as it was on fire. Tari, it was said, was a sister of three of the petitioners and either the landlord or the paramour of the fourth petitioner. The hut which was burning belonged to two persons, Srinath Roy and Debendra Roy, who were prosecution wi...
Tag this Judgment!Abinash @ Ambarish Chandra Roy Vs. S.C. Sreemani
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal466,54CWN535
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This is a Rule against an order passed in appeal purporting to be made Under Section 16, West Bengal Bent Control Act, 1948. The landlord brought a suit for rent ON, 5th May 1918. The Act in question came into force on 1st December 1948. The decision of the trial Court was made on 14th February 1948. 2. The short point taken before me is that as the suit began before the new Act came into force the suit itself is not one Under Section 16 (1) of the Act and therefore there was no appeal Under Section 16 (2). The point does not appear to have been taken in the lower appellate Court. It could only be said that the suit was one covered by Section. 16 (l) of the Act if it be held that the words 'or tried by' in that section which says 'that no suit or proceeding by a landlord against a tenant for the recovery of rent or possession of any premises which the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta is competent to try, shall be instituted or tried by any Court other than the said...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6784
- 6785
- 6786
- 6787
- 6788
- 6790
- 6791
- 6792
- 6793
- 6794
- Next ›
- Last »