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
In Re: Grish Chunder Mitter
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal483
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think it quite clear that, in this case, and as a rule in all cases, general letters of administration of a Hindu's estate must be taken out for the immoveable as well as the moveable property, and that duty must be paid upon the value of the whole. Limited administration can only be granted under special circumstances.2. The real point in the case decided by Kennedy, J., in the case of Kadum-binee Dossee v. Koylash Kaminee Dossee (I. L. R., 2 Cal., 430), is beside the present question; and the opinion there expressed by the learned Judge seems not to have been necessary for the purposes of his decision....
Tag this Judgment!Kristo Mohiney Dossee and ors. Vs. Kally Prosonno Ghose and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal485
White, J.1. I have come to the conclusion, after some doubt, to make this rule absolute.2. The object of the suit is to compel Kaliprosonno Ghose to pay, to the extent of the value of his share in a particular zamindari, the amount of a decree which has been passed against this estate.3. It is unnecessary to consider the doubts as to whether the plaintiffs will be entitled at the hearing to that relief or any other relief in some qualified form, because, assuming that they could establish their right to any such relief, I consider that the plaintiffs have failed to show that the defendant Rutnessur Biswas, who is now executing the decree, ought to be stayed in consequence, supposing even that such an equity at all exists. The Appellate Court having decided that Rutnessur may execute his decree against the estate of Khelut, and not against the estate upon which a lien was declared by the decree, he cannot, in my opinion, be restrained from executing his decree, because he is exercising ...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Nobo Gopal Bose
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal491
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that this rule should be discharged.2. It was granted at the instance of the Legal Remembrancer calling upon Nobo Gopal Bose and the other prisoners to show cause why the case against them, which now stands for trial in the Sessions Court of Burdwan, should not be transferred to Hooghly or to the 24-Parganas, or to some other jury district, upon the ground that a fair trial is not likely to be obtained at Burdwan.3. The affidavit in support of this rule was made by Mr. Stevens, the District Magistrate of Burdwan, and it is certainly couched in very general terms.4. Mr. Stevens says that he has been credibly informed, and believes, that the case is causing considerable excitement in the district; that the prosecutor, and the prisoner Nobo Gopal Bose, are persons of influence in the locality; and that most of the inhabitants of the town of Burdwan and its neighbourhood have their sympathies enlisted on one side or the other. But he does not tell us from what...
Tag this Judgment!Baimanekbai Wife of Rastamji Beramji Vs. Manekji Kavas Ji and anr.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom213
M.R. Westropp, Kt., C.J.1. Inasmuch as we are of opinion that Article 178 of Schedule II of Act XV of 1877 is limited to applications made under the Code of Civil Procedure, we hold that applications for probate, or letters or certificates of administration, do not fall within that article. An examination of all the other articles in the second schedule relating to 'applications,' that is to say, of the third division of that schedule, shows that the applications therein contemplated are such as are made under the Civil Procedure Code. Hence it is natural to conclude that the applications referred to in Article 178 are applications ejusdem generis, i.e. applications under the Code of Civil Procedure. The preamble of the Act moreover, purports to deal with 'certain applications' only, and not with all applications. We reverse the order of the Acting District Judge of the 16th July, 1880, and direct the present District Judge to proceed to hear and dispose of the cases on its merits. Cos...
Tag this Judgment!The Government Vs. Karimdad
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal496
1. On the 26th July 1880, one Karimdad laid a complaint before the head constable in charge of Kubdia outpost, against one Doorga Churn Ghose, a Government officer, and against his peon, under Section 342 of the Penal Code. The Police enquired into the case and reported that the charge was false.2. On the 20th August, the Deputy Magistrate in charge of the sub-division recorded his order on the Police report to the effect, that the charge laid was utterly false, and recommended the Magistrate of the District to order the prosecution of Karimdad under Section 211 of the Penal Code. The Magistrate had previously summoned Karimdad to make his statement at head-quarters before one of the Deputy Magistrates; he, however, neglected to attend.3. On the 31st August, the Magistrate sanctioned the institution of proceedings against Karimdad under Sections 211 and 198 of the Penal Code, and directed the Deputy Magistrate to take up the case.4. On the 21st September, the Deputy Magistrate, without...
Tag this Judgment!Hameedoollah Vs. Mahomed Asghur HosseIn and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal499
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that this rule should be discharged.The plaintiff in the first instance brought a suit against the defendants in the District Court of the 24-Parganas for an alleged infringement of his copyright. The Judge of the 24-Parganas dismissed the suit, upon the ground that, being a suit for damages, it ought to have been brought in the Small Cause Court.The plaintiff then brought a suit in the Small Cause Court at Sealdah, and there the defendants took the objection that the suit could not be brought in the Small Cause Court, but should have been brought in the District Court of the 24-Parganas. The Small Cause Court dismissed the suit upon that ground; and this rule was then obtained by the plaintiff to set aside the order of the Small Cause Court, dismissing his suit and directing that Court to try the cause upon the ground that it was properly cognizable there.In support of the rule, the learned pleader has now called our attention to a case decided in the yea...
Tag this Judgment!Latchman Pundeh Vs. Maddan Mohun Shye and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal513
Field, J.1. The decree which forms the subject of these proceedings was passed on the 5th of December 1876 by the Munsif of Manbazaar. Subsequent to the passing of that decree, the head-quarters of the Manbazaar Munsifi were transferred from Manbazaar to Barabazaar, and the local limits of the jurisdiction of the same Munsifi were altered by transferring certain than as to the district of West Burdwan and forming them into, or uniting them within, another Munsif, termed the Katra Munsifi.2. On the 5th of December 1879, the decree-holder applied to the Munsif of Manbazaar, then stationed at Barabazaar, to have his decree executed. The decree was a money-decree, which also declared a lien on certain immoveable property. This immoveable property was, at the time of making the decree, within the jurisdiction of the Manbazaar Munsifi; and by reason of the transfer, to which I have adverted, became subsequently, and was on the 5th of December 1879, a portion of the local jurisdiction of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Prosonno Ghose Vs. Newaj Bundopadhya
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal543
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that this appeal Should be dismissed.A suit was brought by the zamindar to enhance the rent of certain lands after notice. The defence in respect of one portion of these lands was, that it was lakhiraj; and the defendant called two witnesses to prove that defence.2. The first Court dismissed the suit upon this ground. It held that, as regards the lands said to be lakhiraj, prima facie case had been made out by the defendant that they were lakhiraj; and that the plaintiff had failed to show that the whole of the lands in suit were rent-paying lands; and as the notice of enhancement was a general one applicable to all the lands in suit, not distinguishing the rent-free from the rent-paying lands the notice was bad even for the rent-paying portion; and therefore he dismissed the suit and declined to go into the question of enhancement at all.3. The case then came before the Judicial Commissioner on appeal: and he has remanded it to the first Court upon the gr...
Tag this Judgment!Anunda Shaha Biswas, Vs. Kema Bebee and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal548
Pontifex, J.1. We think that, under Section 560 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a petition is presented for rehearing of an appeal heard ex parte in the absence of the respondent, the applicant is bound to satisfy the Court that the notice was not duly served, or that he was, prevented by sufficient cause from attending when the appeal was called on for hearing. If he is not prepared at the time to satisfy the Court in these particulars, his application is properly rejected. That is what seems to have happened in this case. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Luchman Lall Vs. Ram Lall
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal521
Mitter, J.1. These are two cross-suits between persons who at one time were carrying on a partnership business in grain. The object of the suits was for adjustment of account, and for recovery of the money due to each other. The suits were instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Patna. The Munsif dismissed both these suits. There were two appeals; and the District Judge on appeal held, that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, because, under Section 265 of the Contract Act, it was the District Judge's Court which had sole jurisdiction to grant relief in a case like this. We think that the District Judge is wrong in this view. It has been decided by the Madras High Court in the case of Javali Ramasami v. Sathambakam Theruvengadasami (I. L. R., 1 Mad., 340) that Section 265 is only an enabling section,-that is to say, it leaves to the option of the plaintiff either to institute proceedings under that section in the District Judge's Court, or to pursue his ordinary civil...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- Next ›
- Last »