Skip to content


Privy Council Cases Home > Privy Council Page 6815 of about 68,146 results (0.139 seconds)

Dec 23 1949 (PC)

Gangadhar Vs. State

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1952All580

Seth, J. 1. This is a reference by the learned Ses. Judge of Mathura recommending that an order passed by a Mag. be modified.2. The aforesaid order was passed in proceedings started under Section 145, Cr. P. C. which were started on an application made by applicant Gangadhar stating that there was dispute about the possession of a piece of land on which a shop was being reconstructed & that the opposite parties were likely to commit a breach of peace. Thereupon enquiry was made from the Station Officer of Baldeo police station & a report was received from him to the effect that there was a likelihood of a breach of peace. When notices were issued to the opposite parties, they put for ward a written statement in which they alleged, inter alia, that there was no likelihood of any breach of peace. The learned Mag. recorded a finding that there was no apprehension of any breach of peace from the side of the opposite parties.3. It is true that there is no specific finding to the effect that...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 23 1949 (PC)

Mt. Radha Kunwar Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1952All587

Mushtaq Ahmad, J. 1. This is an appeal by deft. 1 in a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,500 in which a decree for Rs. 6.018-15-0 only was passed by the learned Civil Judge of Aligarh. The facts giving rise to the appeal are these:2. One Yamuna Prasad & a person called Yudhishtra Prasad held a decree which was partly on a mortgage & partly on a simple debt against one Hakim Jeevan Lal. These D. Hs. were the nephews of one Lala Jhanku Lal who died on 26-4-1936, leaving a widow, deft. 1, who is the appellant in this case. Jhanku Lal was a trustee of an institution known as Govind Ram Sapraia Aushadhalaya, Hathras, under the management of Ram Narain, pltf. 1. The suit was filed by Ram Narain along with the Trust as pltf. 2 against the widow of Jhanku Lal, & the other members of the Trust Committee were impleaded as pro forma defts.3. The aforesaid D. Hs., it appears, stood in need of money, & as they had not been able to recover the amount of their decree from the J. D. by that time, they made a...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 28 1949 (PC)

Mt. Maina Vs. Dhundu

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1950HP33

ORDERBannerji, J.1. This is a reference made by the District Judge of Caamba under Section 100, Punjab Tenancy ACT, recommending that the decree dated 26th July 1949 of the Subordinate Judge, from which an appeal was taken to him, be registered as a decree of a revenue Court inasmuch as the suit was cognizable by a revenue Court. 2. The material facts, as appear from the pleadings and also from the judgment, are as follows: The plaintiff, Mt. Mama, widow of Laddakhi, commenced this suit for possession of land, measuring four acres one kanal and one marla recorded in Khata No. 43 and seven marlas of land, in Khata Nautor at page 26, in village, Melah, pargana Lihl. The defendant took this land from plaintiffs' husband and cultivated it, it is alleged by the plaintiff, OH half batai. In para. 2 of the plaint, the plaintiff, alleged that she had warned the defendant not to prepare land for Rabi crop for 2005 and give up possession of the land, which the defendant refused. 3. The defence w...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 29 1949 (PC)

The Crown Vs. Naru S/O Lachhman

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1950CriLJ908

ORDERHarnam Singh, J.1. This is a reference by Pundit Inder Kishan Wali, Special Magistrate, Fazilka, Under Section 841, Criminal P. 0,2. The facts, so far as material are these: Maru is being prosecuted Under Section 302, Penal Code for causing the death of Mohan a on the night between 16th and 17th March 1949. In the Court of commitment evidence was examined between 14th May 1949 and 7th September 1949. On l1th September 1949 Maru accused was examined Under Section 842, Criminal P.C. By his order dated 12th September 1919, the committing Magistrate found 'considering the case on the whole, it is quite apparent to me that a prima facie case baa been made out against the accused, who is accordingly committed to the court of Seat-ion to stand trial there, Under Section 302, Penal Code.'3. The order of the Magistrate passed on 11th May 1949 shows that Maru accused is very hard of hearing but that be is intelligent enough to understand the nature of the proceedings against him.4. How, in ...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 29 1949 (PC)

Janda Rubber Works Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Salaries Section and A ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : [1950]18ITR951(P& H)

KAPUR J. - Janda Rubber Works Limited, a private limited company, was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, with its registered office in Lahore, now in Pakistan. It had certain factories in Bombay which included the Universal Rubber Works. On 2nd July, 1947, the registered office of the company is alleged to have been shifted to Amritsar. Under Section 21 of the Income-tax Act all companies have to make returns showing the names of servants in their employment, their salaries and their incomes and the amounts deducted out of the salaries as income-tax. For the assessment year 1948-49, the company made a return to the Income-tax Officer, Bombay, on 5th July, 1948. This is contained in para. 3 of the affidavit of the Income-tax Officer, Mr. Barwe. As the returns for the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48 had not been made under Section 21 of the Income-tax Act assessments were made by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 50,000 per year for each of the two years on the basis of the re...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 30 1949 (PC)

Khalifa Janki Das Vs. Imperator

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1950P& H172; 1950CriLJ888

ORDERKapur, J.1. Saifl Kashmiri, a Muhammadan who originally belonged to Lahore, came to Delhi and on 29th October 1949 he was arrested under an order made by the District Magistrate of Delhi Under Section 3, East Punjab Public Safety Act (Act V [5] of 199) which has been extended to Delhi, On the same day, the detenu was supplied with reasons as required in Sub-section (5) of Section 8 and they were as follows:You are an original resident of Lahore and came to Delhi after partition after having developed some differences with your father.Since your arrival in Delhi you started a malicious propaganda against the Jamiat-ul-Ulema and Muslims. You have been acting on communal lines. Recently you Issued three posters which were very objectionable from a communal point of view. Your effort Is to deepen the differences between the population of displaced persons and the Muslim residents of Delhi. Your activities are prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order.The period of d...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //