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
The Empress Vs. Jubdur Kazi and Golab Khan
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal718
Mitter, J1. These appeals arise out of the same trial. The appellant s have been convicted of being members of an unlawful assembly, in which one Guru Churn received fatal injuries and one Babul Chund was less severely hurt.2. It seems that they were acquitted of any offence as respects the death of Guru Churn, the conviction being for rioting armed with deadly weapons under s. 148, and for hurt caused to Babul Chund under Section 324, read with Section 149 of the Penal Code. The periods awarded being three years under Section 148, and two years under Sections 149 and 324.3. The learned Counsel who appeared for Jubdur Kazi, appellant in No. 22, confined himself to urging that the sentences passed upon his client were in excess of what could be passed, according to law, and that the injuries caused to Babul Chund by one of the members of the unlawful assembly, not found to be his client, were not caused in prosecution of the common object of the assembly.4. The learned Counsel's content...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mayadeb Gossami
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal762
Cunningham, J.1. The prisoner in this ease applied for a certificate under Act XL of 1858 in respect of the estate of two infants, and in support of his application he gave a sworn deposition on the 4th October last before the District Judge.2. His deposition was made in Assamese, and was translated by the Sherishtadar of the Court, and the Judge recorded it in English. He did not sign it, nor was it read over to the witness or translated. The requirements of Sections 182 and 183 of the Civil Procedure Code were, therefore, not complied with This is clear from the deposition of the Sheristadar before the Deputy Commissioner.3. At the conclusion of the proceedings in his Court, the Judge considered that the prisoner had given false evidence, and he directed that he should be prosecuted. This has resulted in his conviction, and as this Court was of opinion, on the facts brought to its notice, that the appeal ought not to be tried by the Judge before whom the false evidence was given, the...
Tag this Judgment!Tamaya BIn Annaya Vs. Timapa Ganpaya and
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom262
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. In this case plaintiff had leased his estate in 1871 by a 'mulgeni chitti' to the defendant at a yearly rent of Its. 67. The defendant was then living in union with his brothers, defendants 2 and 3, and acting as manager of the family. The lease contained a clause that the mulgenidar had no right to transfer by mortgage, gift, sale, exchange, or otherwise, but there was no clause providing for the forfeiture of the estate on breach of the covenant. The brothers subsequently became divided in estate, and the land in question was partitioned into three shares. The share of defendant No. 1 was afterwards attached and sold at a Court sale, and purchased by defendant 4. The share of defendant 2 was also sold privately to defendant 5.2. The plaintiff now seeks to recover from the defendants the piece of land demised by the lease, on the ground that the stipulation against alienation has been broken, and also the rent for the year 1879-80 which, he says, he is ent...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Deela Mahton Vs. Sheo Dyal Koeri
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal714
Cunningham, J.1. We think that the Magistrate was not at liberty to refuse to summon the witnesses tendered by the accused, except on the grounds specified in Section. 359 If the Magistrate think that any witness is included in the purpose of vexation or delay or of defeating the ends of justice he may require the accused person to satisfy him that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such witness is material. If the magistrate be not so satisfied he shall not be bound to summon the witness but in doubtful cases he may summon such witness if such a sum is deposited with the Magistrate as he thinks necessary to defray the expense of obtaining the attendance of the witness one of the Code of the Criminal Procedure; and that if he did refuse on those grounds, he ought to have proceeded under that section. The fact that the accused stated that they did not wish to examine those witnesses when the case closed, was no reason for refusing to summon them to meet fresh evidence which...
Tag this Judgment!Sarkies Vs. Prosonomoyee Dossee and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal794
Wilson, J.1. The main question in this case is a pure question of law,---namely, whether, by the law in force in Calcutta, the widow of an Armenian, married before the Dower Act (XXIX of 1839), is entitled to dower out of lands which her husband held during the marriage for an estate of inheritance, as against a Hindu purchaser for value from the husband during his life.2. There is, so far as I can find, no express authority upon the question. It must, therefore, be dealt with upon consideration of principle.3. The plaintiff's claim is founded upon two propositions,---1st, that, by the law of England, a widow would, under like circumstances, be entitled to-dower; 2nd, that the law of England governs the present case.4. The first of these propositions is no doubt correct. The question is as to-the second. It is often said that the law administered by this Court is,--- except in certain matters affecting Hindus and Mahomedans, and except so far as statutory provisions have modified it,--...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsebuk and ors. Vs. Ramlall Koondoo
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal815
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Before answering seriatim the questions referred to us, I think it necessary to explain what I consider to be the law with regard to the non-joinder of plaintiffs in actions of contract. This explanation will of itself afford an answer to most of the questions referred. In actions of contract, it is the right of the defendant, if he takes the objection in proper time, to insist upon all the persons with whom he contracted being joined as plaintiffs; and if, after the objection has been raised, the plaintiff proceeds with the suit without taking steps to add the person or persons whose nonjoinder has been objected to, and the Court finds that the objection is well founded, the suit must be dismissed. It is for this reason that the nonjoinder of plaintiffs in an action of contract has always been a plea in bar; and the justice of the rule is manifest. If a defendant is sued by one only of two persons with whom he has contracted, he may have a set-off, or any other d...
Tag this Judgment!Nittyanund Roy Vs. Abdar Raheem and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal77
Morris, J.1. The only point at issue in this case is, whether the etmami tenure of the defendants existed at the time of the Permanent Settlement. The lower Appellate Court, reversing the decision of the first Court, has decided in favour of the defendants. It relies entirely upon certain papers of the year 1126-27 Mughi, corresponding with the English year 1764, which purport to be abstracts from, or copies of, chittas made apparently in that year. The Judge says: 'I am inclined to admit them,' and he does so, because, to use his own words, 'they are public documents compiled by, used by, and guarded by public officers, and their certified copies are admissible as evidence of the contents of the original.' Now, in the first place, these documents are not copies of the originals, but they are copies of copies. No reason is assigned why the originals or their copies are not produced. Then, again, there is nothing to show, beyond the fact that they came from the Collectorate, that they a...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Chunder Moitra Vs. Abdool Sayad and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal835
Pontifex, J.1. I think this rule must be made absolute and the order of the Deputy Magistrate must be set aside. In giving my reasons for this decision, it is necessary to advert shortly to some circumstances which preceded the order made by the Deputy Magistrate. The person moving for the rule is one Gobind Chunder Moitra, who alleges that, in March 1879, he purchased the property with respect to which the order which he seeks to set aside was made under Section 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the date of such order being the 20th January 1881.2. On the 20th March 1879, Gobind Chunder applied, under the land Registration Act, to have the land registered in his name. The decision of the Deputy Collector, in which he found that Gobind Chunder had proved possession and was entitled to registration, was not passed until the 24th December 1879.3. Now it appears that, prior to this alleged purchase by Gobind Chunder Moitra, Abdool Sayad and Abdool Majid, who now oppose the rule, had ...
Tag this Judgment!Falle and ors. Vs. Macewen and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal1
Pontifex, J.1. This case, although exceedingly important to the subscribers to and pensioners upon the Uncovenanted Service Family Pension Fund, does not appear to us to be one of much difficulty. The Fund was established many years ago for the purpose of securing a provision for the widows and children of its subscribers. Originally, or at all events prior to 1850, the Rule (then being No. 33) as to payments of pensions was as follows:---'That widows being incumbents on the Fund shall be paid their pensions at any place they may desire, either monthly, quarterly, or half-yearly, subject to the usual charges of remittance. The pensions of children being incumbents shall also be so paid, and on the same conditions.' The subscriptions were and continue to be paid in rupees, and the pensions are calculated in rupees according to certain tables.2. It is clear, of course, that the tables would be untrustworthy and deceptive guides, if the subscriptions were paid in a lower and the pensions ...
Tag this Judgment!The Land Mortgage Bank of India, Limited Vs. Surnomoye Dassya and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal173
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the District Judge has taken an erroneous view of this case. [His Lordship then stated the facts as above and continued.]2. Both parties complain of this decision, the plaintiffs (by way of appeal), on ground, that the defendants were not entitled to any part of the surplus proceeds; and the defendants (by way of cross objection) on the ground, that they are entitled to the whole of the Rs. 865-5-9, and that the Court below was wrong in directing them to restore Rs. 315 to the plaintiffs.3. It is strange that, during the whole of the argument in this Court, we have been allowed to remain under a wrong impression as to a point upon which, as it seems to us, the whole case turns. We were led to suppose, that the suit brought by the defendants, in which they recovered the Rs. 865-5-9, was not brought within two months from the time, of the sale of the patni; and if that had been so, we think that the Munsif would have had no power to order that sum to b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- Next ›
- Last »