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
Akhil Ranjan Das Gupta Vs. B.N. Biswas
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal472,54CWN536
Sen, J.1. This rule has been obtained by the defendant against an order allowing the plaintiff to amend his plaint. 2. The facts are these. The plaintiff instituted a suit in ejectment against the defendant when the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, was not in force. His suit was based on a notice to quit and the bar to the recovery of possession which had been laid down in the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1916, then in force was sought to be removed by the plea that the plaintiff required the premises bona fide for his own use and occupation. While the suit was pending, the present Act (The West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948) came into force. Section 12 (3) of the present Act lays down that if a tenant fails for three consecutive months to pay or deposit in accordance with the provisions of this Act any rent payable by him in respect of any premises which has accrued due after the commencement of this Act, the interest of t...
Tag this Judgment!Manglu Meher and ors. Vs. Sukru Meher and ors.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori217
Jagannadhalas, J.1. Defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants in this second appeal. It arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs to set aside and alienation and to recover the property comprised therein from the possession of the defendants. Defendant 4 and plaintiff 1 are the sons of one Bhuban Meher. Plaintiff 2 is the son of plaintiff 1. Defendants 5, 6 and 7 are the sons of defendant 4. The alienation sought to be impeached is a sale-deed, Ex C, dated 1st March 1933 of lands of the extent of 1-5 acres (it may be noted that the plaint mentions lands of 1.26 decimals) which admittedly are the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants 4 to 7. The sale-deed purports to have been executed by Bhuban and his two sons defendant 4 and plaintiff 1. Defendant 4 has signed it also for his minor sons 6 to 7 and plaintiff 1 for his then minor son, plaintiff 2. The alienees under the sale-deed are the brothers of Bhuban Meher, viz., defendant 3 and the father of defendants 1 and 2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Kothandarama Reddiar Vs. Chokkammal and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad458
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. This civil revision petition raises a question relating to court-fee and jurisdiction, The suit which has given rise to this civil revision petition was instituted by the respondent herein for setting aside the compromise decree passed in O. S. No. 610 of 1944 on 13th December 1945. The short facts of the case leading up to this litigation may be stated. 2. The present respondent 1 filed O.S. No. 15 of 1927 on the file of the District Munsif of Madurantakam for recovering maintenance from the adoptive mother of the present petitioner and obtained a decree therein. In execution of that decree for maintenance the present respondent 1 brought the properties to sale and purchased them herself. Subsequently, the present petitioner filed O. S. No. 610 of 1944 for a declaration that the decree obtained in O. S. No. 15 of 1927 was not binding upon him for the reason that he was not impleaded as a party to that suit. That suit ultimately ended in a compromise decree und...
Tag this Judgment!Govindram Gordhandas Seksaria Vs. the State of Gondal
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR450
Radcliffe, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated November 8, 1948. The first of these decrees reversed a judgment against the respondent, the State of Gondal, in favour of the present appellants which had been given on January 15, 1943, by the High Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction : the second decree dismissed an appeal by these appellants from the same judgment in so far as It rejected their claim in the suit against the second and third respondents.2. The facts out of which the litigation arises are simple and they have produced no material divergence of view in the Courts in India. The real question is how the law should be applied to those facts. All that it is necessary to notice may be briefly set out as follows. On October 1, 1926, a limited company called The Currimbhoy Mills Co., Ltd., executed a debenture trust deed mortgaging two mills known as the Currimbhoy Mill and the Mahomedbhoy Mill togethe...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Manmohan Das Vs. United Provinces
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR505
John Beaumont, J.1. These consolidated appeals are from a decree of a division bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated August 22, 1941, and from an earlier decree of a division bench of that Court, dated April 30, 1940, both decrees being made in the winding-up of the Lower Ganges and Jumna Electricity Distributing Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called the company).2. The question which calls for decision is whether certain mortgage debentures issued by the company for the purpose of securing a sum of Its. 3 lacs with interest, and secured by a debenture trust deed, constitute a valid charge on the undertaking and assets of the company, or whether the charge upon the undertaking intended to be created in favour of the debenture holders is void by reason of the provisions of Section 9, Sub-sections (2) and (3), of the Indian Electricity Act, IX of 1910 (hereinafter called the Act). These sub-sections are in the following terms : 9.(2) The licensee shall not at any time assign h...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Sharif Khan Vs. U.P. Government
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1953All274
Malik, C.J.1. A house in the city of Pilibhit was in the occupation of Mohammad Umar, Circle Inspector of Police on payment of Rs. 50 per month as rent. Mohammad Umar was transferred and was succeeded by Mustafa Khan. When Mustafa Khan wanted to occupy the house that was in the occupation of his predecessor-in-office, the owner of the house raised certain objections The District Magistrate thereupon requisitioned the house under Section 3, U. P. Temporary Accommodation Requisition Act, 25 of 1947.2. In the year 1947, there being an acute shortage of houses which was, to a larger extent, due to influx of refugees and a movement of the population from the rural to the urban areas, the Provincial Legislature passed this Act giving the District Magistrate a right to requisition any accommodation for any public purpose by an order in writing. If after such order and within the period specified in the Act, possession was not given, the District Magistrate was authorised under Section 11, to ...
Tag this Judgment!Sharan Behari Lal and ors. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1953All276
Agarwala, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of money on the basis of a simple mortgage bond dated 23-12-1931, executed by Angan Lal, defendant 1, in favour of the plaintiff, who was at the date of the mortgage and still is, an advocate practising at Mathura. The appellants are subsequent transferees of the hypothecated property and were arrayed as defendants 2 to 5 in the suit. Defendant 1 did not contest the suit. Indeed, he appeared as a witness for the plaintiff. The appellants contested the suit inter alia on the grounds, (1) that the mortgagor, Angan Lal, was on the date of the mortgage, dated 23-12-1931, a member of the joint Hindu family with his brother Kunj Lal and as such, could not mortgage any portion of the property, and (2) that the plaintiff, being a legal practitioner, was prohibited from entering into a trade or business and as the advancing of a loan on the basis of the mortgage is a contract by way of trade or business, the contract...
Tag this Judgment!Fateh Chand Vs. Daulat Chand
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All358
Malik, C.J. 1. A temple was built at Maheshwari Mohal, Kanpur City, in the year 1872 by one Raghunath Pershad, who installed in that temple an idol of Shri Dharam Nath Swami. A dharamshala was later purchased by Santokh Chand, father of the defendant-respondent, but it is admitted that there is no income from the Dharamshala. It is, however, alleged by the plaintiff that this was property of the temple and did not belong to Santokh Chand. In a partition in 1918, it was found that a sum of Rs. 19,337-1-9 belonging to the temple was in deposit in the parties' ancestral firm Sukhrup Mal Raghunath Pershad. At the time of the partition, the defendant was made responsible for payment of this money to the temple and a charge was created on the two houses allotted to him and it was provided in the arbitration award that he would not be entitled to sell these houses except with the object of raising money to repay the sum due to the temple. With this money some land had to be purchased with the...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Lal Bhargava Vs. Mt. Ram Kali Devi
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All396
Seth, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the same suit which was instituted on 15th December 1943, by Mst. Ram Kali Devi against the appellant, Pandit Niranjan Lal Bhargava, for his ejectment from a building, known as 'Sahu Palace'. The aforesaid premises were let on 1st November 1989 by the plaintiff to the defendant for a period of four years, expiring on 31st October 1943. The plaintiff sought to eject the defendant on three grounds, namely, (1) that the term of the lease had expired, (2) that the defendant was causing injury to the building, and (3) that a sum of Rs. 100 had remained due as arrears of rent.2. The defendant pleaded, in defence, that certain orders passed under the Defence of India Rules prevented the plaintiff from ejecting him. He denied that he was causing any injury to the building or that any arrears of rent were outstanding against him.3. The Munsif gave a conditional decree in the suit to the plaintiff. By that decree the defendant was ordered to be ejected ...
Tag this Judgment!The Bank of India Ltd. and Others Vs. Jamsetji A.H. Chinoy and Messrs. ...
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1950PC90
LORD MACDERMOTT: These three consolidated appeals are from a decree, dated 22nd September 1947, of the High Court at Bombay (acting in its appellate jurisdiction) which reversed a decree, dated 7th January 1947, of the same Court (acting in its original civil jurisdiction) whereby a suit (No.1086 of 1942) brought by the above named Jamsetji A.H. Chinoy and Messrs. Chinoy and Co. (respondents in the first and second appeals and appellants in the third) was dismissed. 2. This suit was instituted on 24th August 1942, against the above named Edulji F. E. Dinshaw and Bachubai F. E. Dinshaws (hereinafter referred to as "the Dinshaws" as sole defendants. The plaint alleged that the Dinshaws held between them 1,200 A and 1,200 B shares in an Indian company named F.E. Dinshaw Ltd. and had contracted on 8th July 1942, through their agent Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (hereinafter called "Shapoorji'.) to sell these shares to the plaintiff Jamsetji A. H. Chinoy at the price of Rs. 3,000 per collective...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6805
- 6806
- 6807
- 6808
- 6809
- 6810
- 6811
- 6813
- 6814
- 6815
- Next ›
- Last »