Privy Council Court January 1930 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.
Alexandre Bouzourou Vs. the Ottoman Bank
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-21-1930
Lord Thankerton: In the present case the appellant, who appeals by special leave in forma pauperis, sues the respondent Bank for damages for wrongful dismissal and for a declaration that he was entitled to be paid a monthly pension of 39 4s. by the respondents. He appeals from a decision of the Supreme Court of Cyprus dated 27th March 1928, reversing the decision of the trial Judge. The appellant, who is a Christian Ottoman subject, entered the service of the Bank in April 1905, and remained in its service until 7th March 1927 when he was dismissed without notice and without pension, because of his refusal to conform to an order by the respondents in January 1927, for his transfer from the branch at Stamboul, where he was then employed, to the branch at Mersina, a town in the Asiatic provinces of Turkey on the south-east coast of Asia Minor. The appellant maintains (1) that under the terms of his contract of service, the sphere of his employment did not include the provinces of Turkey,...
Rustomji Ardeshir Cooper Vs. Dhairyawan Annasaheb Narandas Thakersey M ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-21-1930
Sir George Lowndes: The dispute in this appeal is as to the appellant's right to specific performance of an agreement for the sale of land. The facts are of an unusual character and make the determination of this question a matter of considerable difficulty. The appellant, was, in the year 1920, the owner of plot of land with a four-storeyed building upon it situated opposite the Mulji Jetha Cloth Market in Bombay. Parts of the building were in a dilapidated condition, and in February of that year the municipality served him with notice to pull down certain portions of three of the upper floors which appeared to be dangerous. The appellant was advised to rebuild, and had plans prepared and submitted to the municipal authorities but they were not approved. Meanwhile, he was in negotiation with one Narandas Thakersey Mulji, who was a director of the Cloth Market Co., and interested in the development of the site, which was evidently a valuable one and on 18th December 1920, an agreement ...
Kamini Kumar Basu and Others Vs. Birendra Nath Basu and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-21-1930
Sir Binod Mitter: The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows: The Basu family referred to in the pleadings in the suit, owned Taltola Hat and Bazar, which was an old and established Hat of considerable repute. It was originally held on land owned by the Basu family on the bank of the river Dhaleswari. The site of the Hat had to be changed from time to time owing to the action of the river, and ultimately, in the year 1916, there was no land owned and possessed by the family on which the Hat could be held and it was removed to some lands belonging to a Mussalman family. There was a great scramble for the purchase of such lands from the different members of the Mussalman family, amongst the plaintiffs on the one hand and the principal defendants on the other. One Abdul Aziz purported to execute conveyances in favour both of the plaintiffs and the principal defendants in respect of the same land, and in the course of the proceedings taken by both parties to have their respec...
(Syed) Muhammad Mazaffaralmusari Vs. Bibi Jabeda Khatun and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-21-1930
VISCOUNT SUMNER: The appellant in this case was plaintiff in the suit. He is the hereditary mutwalli of an ancient wakf of large extent, and he claimed from the defendants possession of extensive lands, as property of the wakf, which he was entitled to resume. The defendants' answer was that the lands were an ancient istimrari tenure, held for a long though indefinite time at a fixed rent and as heritable property, of the appellant's predecessors, who had not only never contested the title, but had frequently acknowledged it by various overt acts. Other defences of limitation and estoppel were raised, but they need not now be considered. In substance, the facts necessary to support this defence were proved, though the actual date and circumstances of the origin of the tenure were not. The tenure had been sold in Court auctions for arrears of rent, and had been described as an istimrari mukarari tenure in 1859 and in 1902; rent receipts were produced for a long series of years, in which...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›