Privy Council Court November 1929 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Virabhadrayya Garu Vs. Mahalakshmamma Garu and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-08-1929
LORD BUCKMASTER: For the purpose of the few remarks that are necessary to dispose of this matter, the Board assumes, in accordance with the instructions of counsel, that the map before them is a map which is north and south, east and west, according to the square of the paper. So regarded, it appears that there were originally two estates, one known as the Gutala estate on the south and the Polavaram estate on the north of a river known as the Kovvada river. The river does not form the actual boundary of the estates, for in part it flows wholly through the Polavaram estate, a small strip of Polavaram being left to the south, but the above description is roughly accurate. The Kovvada river comes first from the north down to the south, and then due west to east, and runs through the greater part of its course in the Gutala estate. The Polavaram estate had another river running through, which was called the Pedrala river. In 1829 it became of considerable consequence to try and arrange, a...
Knut Knutson Vs. Attorney-general
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-07-1929
Sir Charles Sargant : In order to succeed on this appeal, it is, of coarse, necessary for the appellant to show that the allegations in his statement of claim are sufficient to raise a sustainable cause of action against the Crown. And for this purpose the first, and perhaps the most crucial, question to be determined is whether there is to be found in the claim an allegation, either express or by necessary intendment, that the land in question ever came into the possession of the Crown or of some agent for the Crown. Now, in the statement of claim itself, there is a singular absence of any allegation as to possession. In that document there is no averment that the appellant ever acquired any possession of the land, still less that he was in possession in the year 1916, when the British forces occupied the country, or in the year 1924, when the sale by the Nigerian Custodian of Enemy Property took place. The statement of claim is quite consistent with the assertion by the appellant of ...
Eri Beach Co. Ltd. Vs. Attorney-general of Ontario
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-07-1929
LORD MERRIVALE: The Erie Beach Company, Limited, appeals against the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in an action upon an agreed statement of facts wherein the company prayed a declaration that certain shares of its capital stock registered in the name of Frank V. E. Bardol, deceased, and other like shares allotable to him under a contract of his with the company were not upon his death subject to duty under the Ontario Succession Duty Act ; a declaration that the company is not under S. 10 of the Act liable to pay duty in respect of a transfer of such shares permitted by the Company before payment of succession duty thereon or security given for the payment of the same ; and a declaration that S. 10 of the Act in so far as it purports to impose the last mentioned duty on the company is ultra vires of the Province of Ontario. Frank V. E. Bardol was at all material times domiciled in the State of New York in the United States of America. The plaintiff company is ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency Vs. Ahmedabad New Cotton ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-04-1929
LORD BUCKMASTER: The question submitted for the opinion of the High Court is in the following terms : ''When the opening and closing stocks' their Lordship think that there ought to be introduced "of a business" : "are both undervalued, whether the real profits of the company of a particular year can be ascertained by merely raising the valuation !of the closing stock, not taking into consideration the similar under valuation of the opening stock." and the answer is that, in the opinion of the Board, they cannot. The method of introducing stock into each side of a profit and loss account for the purpose of determining the annual profits is a method well understood in commercial circles and does not necessarily depend upon exact trade valuations being given to each article of stock that is so introduced. The one tiling that is essential is that there should be a definite method of valuation adopted which should be carried through from year to year, so that in case of any deviation from...
(Khajeh) Habibullah Saheb Vs. Janki Nath Roy and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-04-1929
LORD BUCKMASTER: Theseare two appeals, an original and a cross-appeal against decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, which modified decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca. They arise in the following way: On 8th May 1846, a large number of people purported to make their property the subject of a wakf, and for that purpose they declared that the first mutwalli should be one Abdul Gunny, and that the purpose of the wakf was that the proceeds of the land should be enjoyed first by the grantors themselves: "and then our descendants and children, generation after generation, then our relatives, and then the poor and destitute." On 11th September 1868, Abdul Gunny purported to create another wakf of property of his own, and the purposes of this wakf are very closely the same as that in the former case, and do not need examination in order to ascertain if there be any difference. Apparently the property was administered in accordance with the wakfs without any q...
Balkisan Devchand and Others Vs. Kunjalal Hiralal Agarwala and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-01-1929
LORD BUCKMASTER: The dispute in this case arises as to the ownership of certain lands in the East Khandesh District, within the Presidency of Bombay, and it depends upon determining whether or no a deed that was executed on 11th August 1911 by a widow and her adopted son was or was not valid. The suit to determine the dispute was brought by the reversioners, who would have been entitled had the deed been void, and it was brought against the purchasers, who are the present appellants. The validity of the deed is challenged upon two distinct grounds. It is first of all alleged that the adopted son, who, with the Hindu widow, formed the vendors, had never been properly adopted, and secondly that there was no necessity that would have justified the sale by the widow alone. The first point arises in this way. The property was, as stated, within the Presidency of Bombay, and within that Presidency it would be possible to establish adoption without proving that the widow had express authority...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›