Privy Council Court December 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.
Govindrao and Another Vs. Rajabai and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-19-1930
Sir John Wallis: The parties to this suit belong to a family of Mahratta Brahmins from Berar, who ever since the year 1839 have been carrying on business as money-lenders or bankers at Pardi, three of four miles from Nagpur, in the Central Provinces. The property in suit, which is valued at two crores of rupees (considerably more than one and a half millions sterling), was acquired in the business carried on by the senior branch of the family at Pardi and in recent years at Nagpur. In 1916 Narayan Rao II (so, described to distinguish him from the common ancestor of the same name), who was then the sole survivor of the-senior branch, died, leaving an infant daughter, but no male issue. Thereupon Govindrao, plaintiff 1, who, with his son, plaintiff 2, now represents the junior branch of the family, claimed to-have become entitled by survivorship to-the whole of the suit property as the joint family property of the undivided family, and in 1917 filed the present suit in the District Court...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Remongton Typewriter Company (B ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-16-1930
Lord Russell of Killowen: The dispute in this appeal has, by reason of a recent decision of their Lordships' Board, been reduced to a small compass. A statement of the relevant facts is however necessary. Assessments in respect of the two financial years 1924-25 and 1924-25, were made under the Income-tax Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), upon the Remington Typewriter Company (Bombay), Limited, as agent for the Remington Typewriter Company of New York. This last-mentioned company is a company incorporated in the United States of America and carries on the business of manufacturing and selling the well-known Remington typewriting machine. These two companies may be conveniently referred to as the Bombay Company and the American Company respectively. The assessments were made in respect of: (1) dividends paid by two Indian Companies, viz., the Remington Typewriter Company (India), Limited and the Remington Typewriter Company (Madras), Limited, to the American Company in res...
Nanhelal and Another Vs. Umrao Singh
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-16-1930
Sir George Lowndes: This is an appeal by special leave. It raises an, interesting question as to execution proceedings which seems to be of not infrequent occurrence. Differing opinions have been expressed in India, particularly in the Court from which the appeal comes and the matter calls for an authoritative decision. Under these circumstances it is a matter of regret to their Lordships that the respondents have not been represented before them. The proceedings in question commenced with an award by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Central Provinces and Berar. By this award the respondents were ordered to pay to the Mauegaon Society a sum of Rs. 2,109-2 with interest and in default, certain immovable property of the respondents, which had been mortgaged to the Society, and which was described as Patti No. 2 half-share of Mauza Bagada (or Bagra) Manegaon in the Hoshangabad District, was ordered to be sold. By virtue of rules made by the Local Government under the Co-operative S...
Abdul Ghafur and Others Vs. Mt. HussaIn Bibi and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-16-1930
Lord Macmillan: The plaintiffs in this suit, dow the appellants, sue for possession of certain properties described in their plaint, which formerly belonged to the deceased Salehuddin and which they claim by right of succession. In order that their claim may succeed they have to establish two things: (1) that they are collaterals of the deceased, and (2) that the deceased's succession was governed by customary law. the present respondents are two sisters and the children of a deceased sister of the late Salehuddin. They deny that the appellants were in any way related to the deceased and maintain that, Mahomedan law alone governs the succession to the properties in questions. The Senior Sub-Judge at Gujranwala before whom the matter came in the first instance, decided both of the two issues above mentioned in favour of the appellants, for whom he accordingly gave judgment. On appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, Martineau and Zafar Ali, JJ. reversed this decision, holding th...
Miss Dottie Karan Vs. Lachmi Prasad Sinha
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-16-1930
Sir Lancelot Sanderson: This is an appeal against a judgment and decree dated 9th August 1927, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, setting aside a judgment and decree dated 20th December 1923, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr. The suit was brought on 12th September 1922, by Lachmi Prasad Sinha and his co-plaintiffs, who are members of a Hindu joint family, against Christiana Benshaw and her daughter, Dottie Karan, claiming to recover Rs. 21,770-6-3 in respect of principal and interest alleged to be due on a mortgage dated 4th October 1910, and to enforce the said mortgage by sale of the mortgaged property. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court, which allowed the appeal and made a decree for sale of the mortgaged property in favour of the plaintiffs. Christiana Benshaw died while the appeal was pending in the High Court, and her husband, Samuel Benshaw and his daughter Mercia Benshaw, were added a...
DulahIn Jadunath Kuar and Others Vs. Raja Bisheshar Bakhsh Singh and O ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-04-1930
Lord Thankerton: These are three consolidated appeals from two decrees dated 15-12-1927, passed by the Chief Court of Oudh, which varied a decree, dated 04-01-1927, of a single Judge of the same Court sitting as a Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction. The plaintiff in the suit out of which these appeals have arisen was Raja Bisheshar Bakhsh Singh, and he is appellant in the second of these appeals No. 103 of 1929). The defendants in the suit were (1) Dulahin Jadunath Kuar (hereinafter referred to as defendant 1), who is appellant in the first appeal (No. 102 of 1929), (2) Lal Pratap Harihar Bakhsh Singh (hereinafter referred to as defendant 2), who is appellant in the third appeal No. (104 of 1929), and (3) Mahabir Singh. The last-named is not a party to the first two appeals, as, by agreement with the plaintiff, the appeal which he had taken from the decree of the trial Judge to the Chief Court was dismissed on 15-03-1927. In the suit the plaintiff claims possession of the Taluka Gang...
Prafulla Ranjan Das Vs. Chief Justice and Judges of Patna High Court
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-02-1930
Lord Atkin: [1] This is an appeal from so much of an order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna as refused to allow the appellant as advocate to appear in the Courts of the province of Bihar and Orissa. The appellant in 1905 was called to the English Bar by the Hon. Society of the Middle Temple. In 1906 he was admitted as an advocate of the High Court at Fort William in Bengal. On the establishment of the High Court at Patna he caused his name to be removed from the roll of advocates of the High Court in Calcutta, and was enrolled as an advocate of the High Court at Patna. He practised as an advocate, and in February 1919 was appointed a Judge of that High Court. His name remained on the roll of advocates. In February 1930 he retired from his office as Judge on medical grounds, on a pension. Meantime, in 1926, had been passed the Indian Bar Councils Act, which provides that the High Court shall prepare and maintain a roll of advocates of the High Court, and that no person shall be ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›