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: Behala Bibi
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal789
Pontifex, J.1. We think that the conviction in this case cannot be sustained.2. The facts are as follows:---Behala, the appellant, with her infant, was sleeping in the same room with her husband. Her husband, on awaking about dawn, found her and her child missing. After some search, she was found at a relation's house, but without the child. As to what had become of the child she then, and subsequently, made contradictory statements. She said at one time that she had left it in the room with her husband. At another time she said that she had been enticed away by one Rakhal; that the child had cried, and Rakhal had said 'let me go and leave it with its father;' that he then took the child away and quickly returned, upon which she and Rakhal went away together.3. Before the Magistrate she said that one Herasatula had enticed her away, and that he had thrown the child into the river.4. The Sessions Judge has believed the last story, and has convicted the woman under Section 201 of the Pen...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Sundari Dasi Vs. Ramjihaldar and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal242
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the Court below was not justified in dismissing the plaintiff's suit.2. The Munsif was undoubtedly wrong in rejecting the claim, because one of the parties who had been made a plaintiff was of infirm mind. The man had not been adjudicated a lunatic; and had not therefore lost his civil rights, and there was no reason why he should not have appeared either by vakeel or in person; see 2 Wm. Saund, Rock v. Slade (7 Dowl., 22), and Gleddon v. Trebble (9 C.B.,N.S., 367). In this respect the District Judge was quite correct.3. But the great mistake which was made by the Munsif was this.4. One out of several co-sharers brought the suit, asking to have his co-sharers joined as plaintiffs. No objection upon the ground of the non-joinder of these co-sharers appears to have been taken by the defendants; and therefore, if the plaintiff herself had not suggested the difficulty, the suit might have proceeded in the name of one plaintiff, and she might have recover...
Tag this Judgment!Rajun Mahta and ors. Vs. Achul Mahta and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal812
Cunningham, J.1. In this case the plaintiff's cause of action is the forcible obstruction in September 1877 of a right of way through the defendants' premises, which the plaintiff alleges that he has peaceably and publicly used for upwards of fifty years. The original Court, finding that no easement was proved, and that any use made of the way by the plaintiff was permissive only, dismissed the suit.2. The lower Appellate Court, considering that the right of way two feet wide was proved, reversed the decision of the Munsif, and gave the plaintiff' a decree. The objection, however, was taken, and is now urged before us in special appeal, that there was no proof of enjoyment within two years before the suit was brought, and that, accordingly, the right was barred under the 4th para, of Section 26 of the Limitation Act of 1877.3. As to this point the Judge observes: 'I do not find any proof that there was any interruption (which was submitted to for one year) before December 1875.' This r...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Nuddiar Chand Shaw, Accused
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal832
Pontifex, J.1. The accused has been convicted under Section 60 of ' The Bengal Excise Act,' VII (B. C.) of 1878. This Section enacts that, ' every licensed retail vendor who sells by wholesale...shall be liable for every such offence to a fine not exceeding two hundred rupees. '2. The Sessions Judge is of opinion that the conviction is bad: (1) because the sale of twelve bottles of beer and three bottles of brandy at the same time, is not a sale by wholesale; and (2) because the person convicted is not a retail vendor, but the servant of such a vendor.3. We think that the Sessions Judge is right in his view of the law as to the second point.4. As to the first point, there is more room for doubt. Under Section 15 of ' The Bengal Excise Act,' the sale of a larger quantity of spirituous or fermented liquors than twelve quart bottles would be a sale by wholesale. If, therefore, more than twelve bottles of beer or of brandy, i. e., of the same kind of liquor, had been sold at one transactio...
Tag this Judgment!Hassonbhoy Vs. Cowasji Jehangir Jassawalla
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom1
West, J.1. In the application with which I have to deal;, the defendant Cowasji prays that the second plaintiff, Hirjibhai, may be committed for contempt in not obeying the order made by Marriott, J., on the 25th September, 1880, that he should give to the defendant inspection of all the documents in his possession, or under his control, of the defendant and of his wife Dosibai. [After some observations, not material to this report, his Lordship continued:]2. As to the property of an application for committal for contempt being made in Court, I have no doubt at all. It may be that such a motion may be made in Chambers, and that thereon the party complained against may be called on to show cause in Chambers when the order disobeyed was originally made in Chambers On the judicial character of orders in chambers see the opinion of Wilmot, C.J., in R. v. Almon, Wilmot's Notes p. 264; but that course, if allowable, as, one or two instances seem to show, by no means implies that a motion in ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Asgur HosseIn and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal774
Pontifex, J.1. (The learned Judge, having gone through the evidence, confirmed the finding of the Sessions Judge. His Lordship then continued.)2. The deposition before the Deputy Magistrate of one of the complainants (Darshan) was admitted by the Sessions Judge under Section 33 of the Evidence Act, it being stated by certain of the witnesses that he was ill and confined to his house. We are of opinion that the evidence as to his illness was not sufficient to bring the case within Section 33 of the Evidence Act. The Sessions Judge ought to have required more precise evidence as to the nature of the illness and the incapacity of the witness to attend. A case has been cited to us, that of Pyari Lall petitioner (4 C. L. R., 504), in which it was held that the incapacity to give evidence mentioned in Section 33 must be a permanent incapacity. In our opinion, that is not a necessary construction. We are inclined to think, on the construction of the entire section, and from reference also to ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheriff Vs. Gobind Mohun Chuckerbutty
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal169
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that this appeal must be dismissed. [The learned Judge here stated the facts and continued.]2. The only ground of defence which has been relied upon is that in the former suit, which was brought in 1275, although the decree of the Court was merely for rendering an account, a commissioner was appointed to adjust the accounts between the parties, and to ascertain what sum was due from the defendant; that the commissioner found Rs. 82-3-11 only to be due; and that the plaintiff in this suit is bound by that finding.3. Now although it certainly does appear, that, in the former suit, a commissioner was appointed for some purpose or other we do not find that he had any authority to go into the account, or to ascertain what was due. The decree merely orders the defendant to render proper accounts to the plaintiff; and it has not been proved how or why the commissioner was appointed, nor that the report of the commissioner was in any way confirmed by the Court.4....
Tag this Judgment!Grishchunder Bundopadhya and ors. Vs. Dwarkanath Pal and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal827
Morris, J.1. This suit was instituted by one Grish Chunder Bundopadhya, one of two auction-purchasers, who, on the 13th January 1871, jointly purchased the estate, Talook Sributso Doss, when it was put up to sale for arrears of Government revenue on the default of the proprietors, Raj Coomar Bose and Dino Nath Bose. After their purchase, the auction-purchasers found themselves unable, in four villages of the property, to realize rent direct from the ryot-cultivators, owing to the opposition of the former proprietors, the Boses who asserted their right to collect the rent in virtue of holding certain intermediate tenures in the shape of two shikmi talooks and one howla tenure. Various suits for rent were instituted against the ryot-cultivators, either by the Boses as plaintiffs, in which the auction-purchasers intervened, or vice versa by the auction-purchasers as plaintiffs, in which the Boses intervened. The litigation was carried up to the High Court, and the final result in April 18...
Tag this Judgment!Asmutullah Dalal and ors. Vs. Kally Churm Mitter
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal56
Tottenham, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is, whether the execution of the decree held by the respondent is barred by limitation as is contended by the appellants. The law applicable is Act XV of 1877.2. The date of the decree is the 12th June 1875, and this application for execution, apparently the first, was filed on the 13th of December 1879,---i.e., four and-a-half years after the above date.3. It appears that the parties had filed a solenamah in the original suit, the terms of which were embodied in the decree. It was accordingly directed that the decretal amount should be paid off by instalments on particular dates: specified, the last instalments falling due between two and three years after the date of the decree. And it was provided, that should the judgment-debtors make default in the payment of any three instalments, the decree-holder might thereupon execute the decree for the whole amount at once, without waiting for the subsequent instalments. In the very fi...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkishore Shaha Vs. Bhadoo Noshoo and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal78
Morris, J.1. The plaintiff, appellant, lent money, in December 1875, to one Asman Singh, who, as security for the repayment of the loan, mortgaged an elephant to the plaintiff, retaining possession of the animal.2. Asman Singh having died without paying off the debt, the plaintiff sued his representatives in 1877, and obtained a money-decree on the 8th May 1877. Subsequently, one Kenaram Oswal, who held another decree against Asman Singh, caused the mortgaged elephant to be sold in execution of that decree. The present plaintiff objected to the sale, on the ground of his own lien upon the elephant, and the sale was effected with notice to the purchaser of the plaintiff's claim. The present suit was brought against the auction-purchaser and against the debtors to obtain an order for the sale of the elephant in satisfaction of the debt.3. The purchaser, the defendant No. 1, represented that the elephant had passed into the hands of the third parties, who intended to buy it from him.4. Th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- Next ›
- Last »