Privy Council Court October 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.
Charu Chandra Ghose Vs. Kumar Kamakhya NaraIn Singh and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Oct-21-1930
Sir John Wallis: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Patna reversing the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh and decreeing the suit brought by the Court of Wards on behalf of the minor zamindar of Ramgarh for a declaration that the suit Village forming the Jagodih estate are an ordinary jagir of the Raj resumable on failure of the direct male line of the grantee, and are not a shamilat or shikmi taluk of the Ramgarh estate as recorded in the khewat or Record of Rights of the zamindari made by the Settlement Officer under the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act of 1908. The adjoining parganas of Chai and Champa, one to the north and the other to the south of the Barrakur river, form part of the Ramgarh zamindari in the Hazaribagh District of Chota Nagpur. The Jagodih estate is situated in Chai, and is one of several estates in these parganas which were recorded in the settlement as shamilat taluks, that is to say, taluks in which the talukdar...
Bagesswari Charan Singh Vs. Kumar Kamakhya NaraIn Singh
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Oct-21-1930
Sir John Wallis: In this, as in the case of Sir Charu Chandra Ghose v. Kumar Kamakhya Narain Singh (AIR 1931 PC 5.)in which judgment has just been delivered, the main issue is as to the correctness of an entry in the khewat or Record-of-Rights of the Ramgarh zamindari prepared under the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. S. 84 (3) of that Act imposes on parties challenging such an entry the burden of proving by; evidence that it is incorrect. The suit is brought on behalf of the minor Raja of Ramgarh for a declaration that the defendants have no right to the minerals in the villages hold by them and for an injunction and damages. The claim for damages has been withdrawn. The defendants denied that they derived title from the plaintiff or his predecessors-in-title, and alleged that the themselves were the owners of the villages and of the subjacent minerals. In the khewat the defendants' tenure is entered as jagir held under the Rajah of Ramgarh resumable after the family...
William Dimech Vs. Goffredo Alessandro Chretien and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Oct-16-1930
Lord Russell of Killowen: In this case the appellant (one William Dimech) sued Goffredo Alossandro Chretien and Giovanni Cilia La Carte (who carried on business in partnership under the style or firm of "Chretien and Co."), for an order restraining them from using the firm name "Chretien and Co.," and other relief, the plaintiff reserving his right of action against the defendants for damages. The action was heard in His Majesty's Commercial Court for the Island of Malta and its dependencies, and by an order of 19th November 1926, it was declared "that the use o the said firm name on the part of the defendants constituted an act of unfair competition as regard the art of typography and is regards stationary;" and the order was made restraining the defendants from using the said firm name in the practice of the art of typography and in the sale of stationery. An order for the destruction of certain cards and articles bearing the said firm name was also made; and each party was ordered...
Achi Thayar Ammal and Others Vs. Balkis Nachial
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Oct-16-1930
Lord Thankerton: This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of appeal of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlement at Singapore, dated 27th June 1928, dismissing an appeal by the appellants from a decision of Deane, J:, as Judge of first instance, dated 4th February 1928. The subject matter of the suit arises out of the administration of the estate of Ahna Mohammad Hussein, who died on 24th January 1901, and under whose will the plaintiff-respondent, a daughter of the testator, was specific legatee of an undivided one-third share in six houses in Singapore. The executor of the will was a brother of the testator, Ahna Mohammed Tamby, who died in 1912. The first-named appellant was the widow of the executor and was the person to whom, as the result of a sale by public auction, the six houses were assigned by the executor in the year 1908, and the remaining appellants are assignees from her of three of the houses. Since the present appeal was taken the first-named appellant has died...
Annamalai Chettiar and Others Vs. A.M.K.C.T. Muthukaruppan Chettiar an ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Oct-14-1930
Lord Thankerton: The parties to this appeal are Chettiar money-lenders and bankers. The plaintiffs respondents represent the firm of A. M. K. Chettiar, and the defendants-appellants represents the N. R. M. A. Chettiar firm Other defendants to the suit, who are not appellants, represented the S.K.T. Chettiar firm and the K. M. A. T. Chettiar firm. The respondents A. M. K. derive their interest under an assignment from R. M. A. T. and the appellants under an assignment from S. K. T. and another Chettiar firm T. A. R. M. The effect of these assignments is in issue in the suit. Prior to the death of one Vijayan Servai, in March 1904, S.K.T. had made considerable monetary advances to him, and after his death up to 1006 they had made certain further advances to the administrator of his estate. These advances had been secured by a mortgage for Rs. 10,000 dated 22nd September 1902, and other securities in favour of S.K.T. In fact that money for these advances was provided jointly by S.K.T., R...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›