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
Hooghly Bank Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Nath Mukhopadhyaya and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal195,54CWN327
1. This is an appeal against an appellate decree of the District Judge of Hooghly affirming the decree of the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court of the same place.2. The facts are very simple. The appellant is a successor-in-interest of one Prannath Choudhury of Satkhira. The defendants are the successors-in-interest of one Raj Krishna, Mukherjee. Both parties are assignees. Prannath Choudhury gave a putni lease of his share of touzi No. 37 of the Hooghly Collectorate to Raj Krishna Mukherjee, one of the terms of which was You shall submit duly year after year in my office the Jamawasil baki papers etc., and the Lowazima papers.' On 1st May 1942, the plaintiff, the Hooghly Bank Ltd., purchased also the putni interest and took delivery of possession on 30th June 1942. They found an utter absence of papers and as the assignees of the original creators of the putni they have now called upon the defendants, the assignees of the putni holder, for the lowazima and collection papers not submitted p...
Tag this Judgment!Khorshed Ali and ors. Vs. the King
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal202
Das Gupta, J.1. These two applications are against two orders of conviction and sentence under Section 7 of Act XXIV [24] of 1946, read with Section 8 of the same Act, in two different cases. In both the cases the petitioners were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two and a half months, and the paddy was forfeited.2. They were heard together, as both of them raise the same question of law--the question whether on the alleged date of contravention of orders for which the petitioners have been convicted, 23rd September 1948--Act XXIV [24] of 1946 was in force. Mr. Mukherjee who has argued the cases for all the petitioners has contended that Act XXIV [24] of 1946 ceased to be in force after 3lst March 1948. If this contention be correct, it must be held that the conviction of the petitioners for acts committed on 23rd September 1948, would be unsustainable.3. Admittedly, Act XXIV [24] of 1946 is, or was a temporary Act. As the preamble states, it was enacted to provide for the contin...
Tag this Judgment!General Secretary, Indian Press Allahabad Mazdoor Union Vs. Manager, I ...
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All308
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal by the General Secretary, Indian Press, Allahabad, Mazdoor Union against the order of the certifying officer, dated 2nd July 1949 by which certain annulments have been made to the standing orders in force in the Indian Press, Allahabad.2. The facts are that there arose a dispute between the management and the employees of the Indian Press. This dispute was referred to the Labour Commissioner by the Government on 30th April. 1949. The standing orders relating to this establishment were finalised by an order of the appellate authority on 8th March 1948 and this order was served on the parties on 22nd March 1948. In the meantime, an application had been made by the management of the Indian Press to the certifying officer for modification of the standing orders on 6th December 1948. The certifying officer passed an order thereon on 2nd July 1949 making certain amendments while the adjudication proceedings under the orders of the Government dated 30th April 1...
Tag this Judgment!D. Ramachandriah Vs. Government of Mysore
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant10; AIR1950Mys10
ORDER1. In C.C. No. 23 of 1948-49 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate, Tumkur, the petitioner along with four others was prosecuted for having contravened Rule 81 (2) read with Rule 121, Defence of India Rules and also the Notification No. F.F. 169 dated 4th October 1948 issued by the District Magistrate, Tumkur District, on the ground that a certain quantity of rice without a permit was being transported from Tumkur to Bangalore. Accused 1 was the driver of the lorry, and accused 2 and 3 were the servants seated in the lorry, at the time the lorry was stopped the luggage was checked and seized on the way between Tumkur and Bangalore, Accused 4 was alleged to be the person who despatched the rice from Tumkur, and the petitioner was accused 5 said to be the owner of the lorry. The learned Magistrate acquitted accused 4 giving him the benefit of doubt but convicted all the rest. Accused 1 to 3 have not challenged the conviction, but the petitioner contends that on the facts...
Tag this Judgment!Girwar Singh Vs. Mathura Prasad
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All368
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. A simple money decree was passed against Mihi Lal and Mathura Prasad. Both of them are 'agriculturists' as defined in the U. P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940. In the execution of that decree Mihi Lal made an application for apportionment of the decree in accordance with the provisions of Section 11, U. P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940, Learned civil Judge allowed the application and apportioned the decree half and half between the two judgment-debtors. The decree-holder appeals against that order. Section 11 of the Act provides as follows :'In any proceeding relating to a loan due jointly from several persons any of whom is an agriculturist or a workman, the Court shall apportion the loan between the joint debtors and the provisions of this Act shall apply only to that part of the loan which is apportioned to the joint debtor who is an agriculturist or a workman.' Learned civil Judge has interpreted the words 'any of whom' as implying that the section applies even when ...
Tag this Judgment!Rex Vs. Sadla and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All418
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Sadla alias Jai Mangal, Sheo Chand, Ram Sia and Sheo Bodhan appeal against their convictions for rioting and for committing the murder of Lunja alias Sheo Mohan at 9 A. M. on 23rd November 1947, in village Kuchauli, which is seven miles from police station Kamasin, district Banda, where the first information report about the incident was lodged at 5-30 P. M. the same day.2. The prosecution has succeeded in proving that, due to old enmity, the four appellants, along with Sheo Sampat, who died subsequently, attacked Lunja and Ajudhia when they were returning from the river Began after having a bath there. Sadla and Sheo Chand appellants came from the other direction. Lunja and Ajudhia left the passage and proceeded towards Lunja's threshing-floor. The other three appellants lay in ambush nearby and incited Sadla and Sheo Chand to beat Ajudhia and Lunja, saying that they also were coming to their help. Sadla and Sheo Chand then rushed towards Lunja and Ajudhia. Sadla ...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Narayan Vs. Mt. Rani Devi
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ574
ORDERDixit, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the Sessions Court Raj Garh refusing to make a reference to this Court for setting aside the order dated 22.6.49 of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panchhor in certain maintenance proceedings. On 20th June 1947, the applicant Hari Narayan was directed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sarangpur to pay maintenance to his children and wife Mt. Rani Devi. The order of maintenance passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was affirmed by the Dewas (Junior) High Court with slight modification. The applicant did not pay the maintenance ordered for the period from 6.5.48 to 28.3.49 and on 31.3.49, Mt. Rani Devi applied to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pachhor to enforce the order under Section 488(3), Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant objected to the execution of the order on the ground that his wife Mt. Rani Devi, without sufficient cause refuses to live with him. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate took the view that it was not o...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Beharilall Firm Vs. Panu Singh
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori233
Panigrahi, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the District Judge, Cuttack, dismissing the petition of the creditor in insolvency proceedings praying for distribution of the assets of the insolvent. In Misc. case no. 17 of 1939, one Panu Singh alias Pranbandhu Singh was adjudicated insolvent on 12th February 1940. On 2lst December 1940, the creditor filed a petition for the purpose of avoiding some sales alleged to have been made by the insolvent just before the presentation of the petition in insolvency, and by its order dated, 17th May 1941, the Courts set aside the sales. The purchaser went up in appeal to the High Court but his appeal was dismissed on 26th April 1945. The insolvent was a party to this appeal. Meanwhile, however, the date fixed for the application for discharge had expired and the insolvent had failed to apply for discharge within the time fixed by the Court. Consequently, on 16th March 1942, the District Judge passed an order of annulment and the adju...
Tag this Judgment!The Registrar of the High Court of East Punjab Vs. N.M. Patnaik, Deput ...
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1950CriLJ1316
Soni, J.1. Five persona, Tehl Chand Ran-dhawa, Bharat Bhushan, (Miss) Amla Boy, (Miss) Janak and Durlab Singh were detained in Delhi Jail under the Punjab Public Safety Act. They put in applications for writs of habeas corpus addressed to this Court and delivered them to the Jailor, Delhi. The jailor on his pact forwarded these applications to the office of the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, asking the Chief Commissioner to forward them to ths High Court. The applications of Tehl Chand Randhawa and Durlab Singh were received in the office of the Chief Commissioner on 8th March 1949 and the applications of Bharat Bhuahan, Amla Boy and Janak were received in his office on 9th March. Tehl Chand Bandhawa was released on 29th March 1919, Bhwat Bhushan, Amla Boy and Janak were released on 7th May and Durlab Singh was release on 17th June 1919. Their applications for writs of habeas corpus were not immediately sent to this Court. They did not reach here till 1st September 1949, They were pub up b...
Tag this Judgment!Kartar Singh Kishan Singh Vs. Raj.
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1951Raj129
1. This is an appeal by Kartar Singh who has been convicted of culpable homicide amounting to murder & sentenced under Section 302, B. P. C. to 'transportation for life i. e , life imprisonment'. The prosecution case is that on the evening of 9.1.1948, one Amar Singh Sikh of village Farangwali had arranged a wrestling competition on the completion of an 'Akhand Path', that the deceased, Gurbachan Singh, who belonged to chak No. 40F, had gone to witness the wrestling, along with Munshi Singh P. W. 6 & his brother Karam Singh P. W. 7 & Kacta Singh p. W. 8 of the same chak that the applt. had also gone to see the wrestling along with the co-accused Tara Singh & Gurbux Singh, that after seeing one or two bouts, the deceased left for his chak at about 6 p. m., along with him aforesaid associates Munshi Singh, Karan Singh' & Kartar Singh & that when the deceased had walked a distance of about 40 paces from the place of wrestling all the three accused, who also were going along on the same ro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6797
- 6798
- 6799
- 6800
- 6801
- 6803
- 6804
- 6805
- 6806
- 6807
- Next ›
- Last »