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
Lulit Singh and anr. Vs. Wazir Mahton and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal166
Mitter, J.1. This is a second appeal against a decree in conformity with an award made by an arbitrator. The first Court held that the objections raised by the defendants should be disallowed, and passed a decree in conformity with the award. The second Court expressed its opinion that the faults, which it found with the award, were not such as would allow it to disturb the judgment.2. It has been strenuously contended before us, that the proceedings in the first Court were such as to make it incumbent on the lower Court to bear the appeal on the merits. This objection, we may say at once, cannot be supported. If the decision of the first Court, for any reason, was not final, the second Court could do no more than remand the case to that Court for disposal on the merits.3. The case being governed by the old Code of Civil Procedure, we have to determine whether there was an award and a judgment in conformity therewith. If so, by Section 325 of that Code, the second Court had no jurisdic...
Tag this Judgment!Rashbehary Mookhopadhya and anr. Vs. Maharani Surnomoyee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal403
Pontifex, J.1. In this case certain Chowdhries held a taluq under Maharani Surnomoyee; and by an ekrar they hypothecated certain other property belonging to them as security for the rent of the taluq. The Maharani instituted a suit against them for the rents of the taluq from Kartick to Cheyt 1281, amounting to about Rs. 9,000, and obtained a decree. Under the ekrar, the property hypothecated by them would be liable, no doubt, to satisfy that decree; but subsequently to the execution of the ekrar, and prior to any attachment by the Maharani under her rent-decree, the Chowdhries assigned all their interest in eight annas of the property hypothecated to Rashbehary Mookerjee and another; and with respect to the other eight annas made a mourosi lease thereof to the same persons. Subsequently the Maharani, under Reg. VIII of 1819, obtained an order for summary sale for the rents from Srabun to Cheyt 1283, and the property was sold; but it is alleged by the applicant before us that such sale...
Tag this Judgment!Nilmoney Singh Vs. Heera Lall Dass
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal23
Cunningham, J.1. In this case, in a suit for rent, an endeavour is made to use an ex parte decree obtained by the plaintiff as conclusive evidence against the defendant as to the amount of rent.2. The defendant denies all knowledge of the decree; and the first Court considered the alleged execution to be fraudulent. The lower Appellate Court considered that the ex parte decree 'was not good evidence' of the amount of rent; and, in the absence of any other sufficient evidence, it dismissed the plaintiff's claim. We think that this view is correct. The decree being ex parte is not 'final' within the meaning of expl. 4, Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, so long as it is open to the Court, on the application of the parties, to modify it. As in this case the alleged execution was held to be fraudulent, and no proceedings had been had which gave finality to the decree, we think that the lower Appellate Court was right in holding that, in the absence of any proof of execution, the de...
Tag this Judgment!The Owners of the Ship brenhilda Vs. the British India Steam Navigatio ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal547
B. Peacock, J.1. This is a motion on the part of the British India Steam Navigation Company, the owners of the ship Ava to relax and dissolve the inhibition and citation issued in a certain pretended appeal of the abovenamed appellants, and to dismiss or to quash the said appeal for want of competency, or to grant the respondents leave to file an act of protest on petition against the admission of the said pretended appeal.2. The suit came before the High Court in the exercise of its Original Jurisdiction. It was brought by the owners of the steamship Ava, against the Brenhilda, for a collision which took place in the Bay of Bengal. The High Court, in its Original Jurisdiction, held, that there was negligence on both sides, and consequently that half the damages which resulted to the owners of the ship Ava were to be paid by each of the parties. The damages were assessed at 50.000l, which would leave 25.000l to be borne by the owners of the Ava themselves, and 25,000l, to be paid by th...
Tag this Judgment!Mahamud Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Tarini Pershad Misra and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal378
Cunningham, J.1. The first question which calls for consideration is, whether we can regard the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of 18th June 1879 as a finding of a Civil Court on a case properly certified under Section 5 of the Regulation.2. By Reg. III of 1872, Section 5 it was provided that pending the settlement, suits regarding land and rent should be excluded from the ordinary jurisdiction of the Civil Courts established under Act VI of 1871. 'Such suits,' it was provided, 'shall be heard and determined by the officers appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor under Section 2, Act XXXVII of 1855, or by the Settlement Officers hereinafter mentioned, according as the Lieutenant-Governor shall from time to time direct.'3. By a notification of the 7th May 1872 the Lieutenant-Governor directed that, until further orders, the officers appointed under Section 2 of Act XXXVII of 1855, should entertain and adjudicate suits for land under Section 5 of the Regulation. According to this notifi...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Kissore Bose and anr. Vs. Aftab Chundra Mahatab, Maharaja of Bur ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal61
Cunningham, J.1. In execution of the decree which forms the subject of this appeal, the Subordinate Judge, on the 29th February 1868, found, that the property under attachment being debutter could not be sold, but while exempting it from making them applicable towards satisfaction of the decree. His order directed the mukuraridar, the lessee of the judgment-debtors to pay his rents to the decree-holder. The terms of this order may be somewhat informal, but, as we understand them, they amounted to an appointment of the decree-holder to be a receiver under Section 243, Act VIII of 1859, without the direct intervention of the Court, as is usual between the receiver and the decree-holder.2. These collections were made up to the end of 1284 (April 1878), that is, for about ten years. For some reason or other the decree-holder then had some difficulty in realizing his rents, and he has been badly advised to apply to the Court for re-execution of his decree against the judgment-debtors, inste...
Tag this Judgment!Doorga Churn Dhur and anr. Vs. Kally Coomar Sen
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal145
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiffs claim a prescriptive right of passage for boats over a certain water-channel belonging to the defendant ; and they say that the defendant has wrongfully obstructed that passage.2. The Courts below have divided the plaintiffs' claim into two portions. As to the first, the lower Appellate Court has found it to be perfectly true, that the plaintiffs have a right of passage for their boats over that part of the defendant's channel; but then it has also found, that what the defendant has done has not interfered with the plaintiffs' right. The defendant has merely raised an embankment and done certain other acts which have confined the width of the channel by a few feet; but this admittedly leaves ample room for the passage for the plaintiffs' boats, even those of the largest size.3. With regard to the other portion of the claim, the lower Courts find, that the plaintiffs have not proved any right of passage. Their evidence, if it proves anything, goes to...
Tag this Judgment!Prosad Doss Mullick and ors. Vs. Russick Lall Mullick and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal157
Field, J.1. (who, after stating the facts of the case as above, continued):- Section 265 of the Contract Act is as follows: 'In the absence of any contract to the contary, after the termination of a partnership, each partner or his representatives may apply to the Court to wind up the business of the firm, to provide for the payment of its debts, and to distribute the surplus according to the shares of the partners respectively.' Then comes the following explanation:-'The 'Court' in this Section means a Court not inferior to the Court of a District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the place or principal place of business of the firm is situated.'2. Now, the first question which has been argued before us is, that the Court of the Subordinate Judge is not a Court inferior to the Court of the District Judge; but we think, with reference to the Bengal Civil Courts Act, VI of 1871, that this contention is wholly untenable. The Court of a Subordinate Judge is inferior to t...
Tag this Judgment!Mohunt Megh Lall Pooree Vs. Shib Pershad Madi and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal34
Prinsep, J.1. In execution of two decrees held by Norchunder Dutt and Mohanund Dutt, the right, title, and interest of the judgment-debtor, appellant, in three mouzas, Kharn, Kharkhan, and Palmo, were attached and advertised for sale. Meantime a third decree-holder, Sheopershad, applied to execute his decree, in order that, under Section 295 of the Civil Procedure Code, he might participate in the sale-proceeds.2. The two first mentioned properties were then sold, and realized a sum more than sufficient to liquidate the decrees of the judgment-creditors who originally put the Court in motion. The remaining property was next sold, and all the decrees have been satisfied.3. Various objections were then taken to the sale, which were disallowed by the Deputy Commissioner of Hazareebagh, and the judgment-debtor has now appealed against that order. It is first of all contended by Mr. W. C. Bonnerjee, for the judgment-debtor, appellant, that, as the decrees under execution were satisfied by t...
Tag this Judgment!Azizoonnessa Khatoon Vs. Gora Chand Dass and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal163
Pontifex, J.1. We think that the order of the Subordinate Judge in these three cases is an erroneous one. It appears that a certain undertenure was sold in execution of a decree for rent, and after this sale, an application was made to the Subordinate Judge under Section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have the sale set aside on the ground of material irregularity in publishing or conducting it, together with substantial injury caused by reason of such irregularity.2. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the provisions of Section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply to the sale of an undertenure, to a sale held, as he puts it, under the provisions of Sections 59 and 60 of the rent Act. He says, that Section 511 of the Code of Civil Procedure can only apply to sales made under chap. XIX of the same Code, and that, in asmuch as the sale of the undertenure was made under the provisions of the rent Law, it was not a sale made under the provisions of chap. XIX of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- Next ›
- Last »