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
Kale Khan Vs. Rex Through Tarachand
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All417
Desai, J.1. A complaint was lodged by the District Magistrate of Agra in the Court of the City Magistrate charging the applicant Under Section 8, Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, III [3] of 1947. It was mentioned in the complaint that the applicant let out his house to Tara Chand tenant, that the rent was Rs. 4/- per month up to 31st July 1946, that the applicant enhanced it to Rs. 6/- with effect from 1st August 1946 and that he further enhanced it to Rs. 12/-with effect from 1st April 1947. It was contended that this enhancement to Rs. 12/- per mouth was in contravention of the provisions of the Act and, consequently, punishable Under Section 8.2. The trial took place before Shri R. T. I. Mohan, City Magistrate. He tried the applicant summarily. Some witnesses were examined in. eluding Tara Chand who also filed receipts. The City Magistrate found that the enhancement of rent from Rs. 6/- to RS. 12/- was prohibited Under Section 5(2) of the Act.3. The applicant pleaded befo...
Tag this Judgment!In the Goods of Mrs. Lydia and ors. and Mrs. Elizabeth Egbert Vs. A.J. ...
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All543
ORDERMootham, J.1. In this case the petitioner seeks to obtain probate of the draft of a document which is said to have been the last will of Lydia Isabel Myrtle Higgins, the document itself having been lost or destroyed after the testator's death. Caveats have been entered by A. J Fanthome, an advocate of this Court and his wife Mrs. Phyllis Fanthome, and a preliminary issue has been framed as to whether the caveators have any locus standi to contest this petition. That is the issue which I now have to decide.2. The late Mrs. Higgins had a sister, Miss C. V. Willson, who died on 7-11-1945, leaving a will of which the first caveator was the executor and the second caveator the principal beneficiary. Probate of this will was granted to the first caveator on 22-2-1947. Mrs. Higgins died on 15-6-1918. The caveators contend that they are entitled to oppose the present petition on the ground thatthey have an interest in the estate of the late Mrs. Higgins.3. The dispute centres round a hous...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M.R. Venkataraman
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad441
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. These are two petitions for revising the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Cuddalore, in C. C. Nos. 552 and 568 of 1949, directing the trial of the petitioners in those two cases to take place in the civil debtor's yard of the Cuddalore Central Jail and dismissing the petitions put in by these petitioners to hold the Court in the Additional First Class Magistrate's own Court house or other suitable Court house and not in the civil debtor's yard. C. C. No. 552, of 1949 is a case concerning 80 accused, including the petitioner in Cri. B. C. No. 1624 of 1949, and the offences therein are offences under Sections 147, 332, 353 and 149, Penal Code. C. C. No. 568 of 1949 is against 26 accused, including the petitioner in Cri. R. C. No. 1625 of 1949, and comprises, offences under Sections 147, 332 and 149, Penal Code. Some of the accused in both the cases are detenus, and some others are convicts. The petitioner in both these criminal revision cases ...
Tag this Judgment!Hosur Kasipathy, Ex. Property Guardian of the Minors Mutchala Kesava R ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad506
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The guardian of the property of the minors is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. By an order of the District Judge, Anantapur, dated 10th December 1941 in Order p. No. 8 of 1941 the petitioner was appointed as the guardian of the property, and under the terms of the order he was directed that he should on no account keep in his hands more than Rs. 100 after making allowance for the monthly expenditure and that he should deposit into Court all sums over and above Rs. 100 as and when the cash balance with him exceeded the said amount. The petitioner filed a memo on 20th March 1946 for fixing his remuneration and prayed that a re-smuneration of 5 per cent be fixed on the gross realisations, as the remuneration that was fixed in the order was insufficient in view of the heavy work which he did on behalf of the estate. The learned District Judge made an order on 29th March 1946 that 'the remuneration is fixed at five per cent on the realisation.' ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajam Bharathi Vs. Damodaran Naidu and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad730
ORDER1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Chief Judge of the Court of SmallCauses, Madras, setting aside the election of the petitioner from 25th Division of the City. The disputed election was held en 30th September 1948 and it was declared that the petitioner Mrs. Rajam Bharathi was the successful candidate, it having been found that she had polled 726 votes as against 459 secured by her closest competitor Mr. Damodaram Naidu. Mr. Damodaran Naidu thereon filed a petition under Rule (2) of the rules framed under Section 59(2), and Section 347 (1), City Municipal Act to have the election set aside. In para 3 (a), of his petition he alleged that on the day of polling a son of the petitioner named Dorai, who was a student in the Pachaiappa's College, went to the polling booth and claiming to be Sir A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar, Vice Chancellor of the University, asked for a voting paper in his name. Mr. Damodaran Naidu, who was then present at the booth, pointed out that Dorai ...
Tag this Judgment!Talipatigala Estate by Partner, V.S. Sivalingam Chettiar Vs. Commissio ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad781; [1950]18ITR320(Mad)
Viswanatha Sastri, J. 1. In R. C. No. 55 of 1946 two questions have been referred to this Court for our opinion: (1) Whether in the circumstances of the case and on evidence and correspondence produced, the firm of Talipatigala Estate could be held to be controlled and managed in British India and is therefore resident and ordinarily resident in British India under Section 4A,Indian Income-tax Act? (2) Whether the proceedings under Section 34 could be initiated against a firm which was not assessed previously when one of the partners of the firm had been individually assessed on his share in the firm? In R. C. No. 59 of 1946 it is first of the two questions above stated that has been referred to us for our opinion. 2. The facts common to both these references ate these. Talipatigala, a rubber Estate in Ceylon, was purchased by three persons some years ago and during the relevant period was owned by two of the original purchasers, the third having conveyed his interest to the others on...
Tag this Judgment!Challa Appayya and anr. Vs. Desetti Chandra Ayya and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad817
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. Upon the facts set out in para. 6 of the learned District Munsiff's judgment, I think the conclusion that the learned District Munsif has come to is right and his decision will have to be upheld. The plaintiffs in this case filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 110-5-6 which sum had been recovered from the plaintiffs by the Bobbili estate as and towards arrears of rent due in respect of lands for which the plaintiffs' maternal grandfather was pattadar. The plaintiffs are the heirs of their maternal grandfather who held lands under Bobbili estate in patta No. 44. That maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs had sold away the lands in the zamindary about 20 years ago to the defendants by Exs. D-1 and D-2 in the present suit out of which the petition has arisen. Ever since the said gale the defendants had been in enjoyment of the lands and the plaintiffs have had nothing to do with the same. The defendants did not pay rent for Faslis 1342, 1343, 1344 and 1345...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Champa Devi Vs. Babulal Goenka
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal161,54CWN207
ORDER1. This rule was issued by our learned brother Sen J. on the petition of one Srimati Champa Devi who was an accused under trial on a charge under Section 323, Penal Code, before a Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta on the com-plaint of one Babulal Goenka, the opposite party. As our learned brother thought that the rule should be disposed of by a Divisional Bench it has been placed before us under the orders of my Lord the Chief Justice.2. The petitioner is a purdanashin lady not resident, it is said, in Calcutta. She applied to the Magistrate for permission to appear by an agent. She was rightly granted such permission by the Magistrate and wag appearing through her lawyer. Then, an application was filed before the Magistrate by the complainant opposite party asking that she should be required to attend personally to be examined under Section 342, Criminal P. C. The petition was rejected by the trying Magistrate. The complainant came up before this Court and our learned brother Sen...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Shatranjai Vs. Raj Raj Bahadur Singh
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR485
Simonds, J.1. This appeal, which is brought against a decree of the Judicial Commissioners of Oudh dated June 4, 1918, as varied by an order of the Chief Court of Oudh dated November 18, 1941, modifying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mohanlalganj of March 18, 1916, raises the question what upon the true construction of the will of Raj Gobardhan Singh is the interest of the appellant thereunder in certain villages in the Kheri District in Oudh and whether it was proper for the Court to make a declaration in regard thereto.2. Raj Gobardhan Singh, who will be called 'the testator,' vas a taluqdar owning large estates in Oudh including ten villages with which the present appeal is concerned and which will be referred to as 'the ten villages.' He executed his last will on November 13, 1903. At that time he had 3 Ranis and one child only, a daughter named Musammat Raj Kunwar who was then childless. His nearest male collateral was his nephew Raj Baehan Singh.3. On June 24, 1904, the tes...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bisabathuni Ramalingayya
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad391
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The learned Public Prosecutor is afraid that the language used in Section17 (3), Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 will make it impossible for this Court to grant bail to persons like the petitioner, accused of an offence under Section 17 (1). His fears are groundless. Section 17 (3) runs as follows:'An offence under Sub-section (1) shall be cognizable by the police, and, notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, shall be nonbailable.'It is far fetched for the learned Public Prosecutor to think that this clause takes away from a person accused of an offence under Section 17 (1), the right, in suitable cases, to be released on bail under Sections 497 and 498, Criminal P. C. Section 17 (3) merely makes an offence under Section 17 (1) cognizable and also nonbailable, notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code about such unlawful assemblies and meetings. Kindred offences under Sections 144, 145, 146 and 148, Pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6801
- 6802
- 6803
- 6804
- 6805
- 6807
- 6808
- 6809
- 6810
- 6811
- Next ›
- Last »