Privy Council Court July 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.
Official Assignee of the Estate of Cheah Soo Tuan Vs. Khoo Saw Cheow
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jul-29-1930
Lord Tomlin: This is an appeal by the Official Assignee of the Estate of Cheah Soo Tuan, a bankrupt, from an order of the Court of Appeal of the Straits Settlements (Sattlemant of Penang) dated 8th April 1929. By the order of which the appellant complains the Court of appeal set aside a judgment dated 17th July 1928, of Sproule, J. and ordered a new trial. Sproule, J., had declared that a conveyance dated 2nd June 1926, by the bankrupt to his secondary wife, the respondent, of No. 121, Beach Street, Penang, was void as against the appellant and ought to be set aside, and ordered delivery up of such conveyance. By S. 50, Ordinance 44 relating to bankruptcy, it is provided that "any settlement of property not being . . . . a settlement made in favour of a purchaser . . . . in good faith and for valuable consideration . . . . shall if the settlor becomes bankrupt within two years after the date of this settlement be absolutely void as against the Official Assignee." And also that "settlem...
Robert Alan Hill and Others Vs. Permanent Trustee Co., of New South Wa ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jul-29-1930
Lord Russell of Killowen: The Permanent Trustee Company of New South Wales, Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Trustee Company) is the trustee of the will of Richard Hill, deceased, and in that capacity holds, as part of the investments, representing the trust estate, 40,800 shares in a company called the Buttabone Pastoral Co, Ltd., (hereinafter called the Buttabone Company). The Trustee company is also the trustee of the trust fund comprised in a trust declared by indenture dated 9th January 1914, and in that capacity holds 17,600 sharers in the Buttabone Company. In November 1927 the Trustee Company received from the Buttabone Company a sum of 19,380 in respect of the 40,800 shares, and a sum of 8,360 in respect of the 17,600 shares, and the questions raised for decision on the present appeal are whether the sum of 19,380 is to be treated as corpus or income under the trusts of the said will, and whether the sum of 8,360 is to be treated as corpus or income under the trusts of ...
Motilal and Others Vs. Nanhelal and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jul-29-1930
Sir Lancelot Sanderson: This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces, dated 8th April 1920, which reversed a decree of the District Judge of Hoshangibad dated 30th September 1924, and decreed the plaintiff's suit with costs. The appeal is brought by Seth Motilal the son of Seth Sobhagmal, who was defendant 1 in the suit, and who is now dead, and Seth Lachmandas and Seth Manakchand, defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. The respondents are the assignees of the plaintiff, Mt. Jankibai, widow of Govindram Chaudhari. The plaintiff assigned all her interest in the subject-matter of the suit and in the decree appealed against, to the respondents, whose names by order of the Court dated 7th October 1927, were substituted for that of the plaintiff, as respondents in the appeal. The material facts are as follows: On 9th July 1914, Mt. Jankibai, the plaintiff, had agreed to buy from Seth Jiwandas and the latter had agreed to sell to the former a four a...
Osumanyawa Yaw Ewua Vs. Nana Sir Ofori Atta
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jul-28-1930
Viscount Dunedin: This is an appeal ex parte against the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast, affirming a judgment of the Chief Justice of the same colony which dismissed an action brought by the appellant against the respondent on the ground that there was no cause of action disclosed. The appellant is a native of the colony and the respondent is President of the Native Tribunal of Akyem Abuakwa. The proceedings in the Native Tribunal are regulated by an ordinance entitled "the Native Administration Ordinance." The respondent issued a summons against the appellant alleging that he had contravened Art. 28 of the Ordinance by attempting to undermine the authority of the paramount chief. Nothing so far as appears has actually yet been done under that summons, but the appellant instead of appearing before the Tribunal and pleading that he had not contravened S. 28 raised the present action in the Divisional Court, in which he craves a declaration that the issue of the summons ...
Sakariyawo Oshodi Vs. Moriamo Dakolo and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jul-24-1930
Viscount Dunedin: In May 1927 the Governor of the Colony of Nigeria gave notice that he intended to acquire for public purposes a compound known as Alfa Iwo Court, situated at Epetedo, in Lagos. This he was empowered to do under the Public Lands Acquisition Ordinance. Following upon that, summonses were taken out to determine the persons to whom the compensation money, which was payable on the acquisition by the Government, should be paid. Alfa Iwo Court consists of a set of houses set round an internal court, which forms the access to them. The claimants are, on the one hand, Oshodi, who is the head of the family of Oshodi and who claimed it as paramount chief; and on the other the various occupants of the houses. The general character of the title of natives to lands in Lagos was examined by the Board in the case of Amodu Tijani v. Secretary, S. Nigeria (1). What was laid down in that case was that the cession of the territory of Lagos by the King of Lagos to the British Crown in 186...
Mohammad Ali Mohammad Khan Vs. Mt. Bismillah Begam and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jul-24-1930
Sir Binod Mitter: This is an appeal from a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh, dated 11th February 1927, which varied a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mohanlal Ganj, Lucknow, dated 31st May 1926, and decreed in part the plaintiff's suit with costs. The appellant, on 4th November 1921, instituted a suit against Haji Siddique Hasan (hereinafter referred to as defendant 2) to which suit plaintiff-respondent 1 (who is the wife of defendant 2) was not a party, for the recovery of money partly as damages for breach of contract and partly by way of recovery of advances made to defendant 2 for the purchase of goods as commission agent. This suit was decreed for a sum a little over Rs. 24,000 on 25th February 1924, but on appeal was reduced by about Rs. 4,000. After the appellant had obtained his decree in the first Court and whilst an appeal was pending, the appellant, as decree-holder, attached plots 44, 44a, 45 and 46 situated on the New Sanitary Road, Lucknow, with buildings thereon, in ...
Official Assignee of the Estate of Mahomed and Another Vs. Cowasji Din ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jul-24-1930
Lord Tomlin: This is an appeal from the Court of appeal for Eastern Africa, allowing the respondents' appeal from the High Court of -anzibar. The facts are shortly as follows: One Mahomed Bin Salem el Jaseri owned certain shambas. In August 1921, he mortgaged them to the respondents, Cowasji Dinshaw and Brothers, and he made a second mortgage in April 1923, to the respondent Dr. Lawrence D'Albuquerque. Both mortgages were in the same form. On 2nd March 1928, Mahomed Bin Salem el Jaseri granted a lease to the appellant, Fazel Mohamad Champsi. The mortgagees did not concur in that lease. Later on, on 16th March 1928, he granted a second lease to the respondent, Pedro Domingos D'Sa. It is said that either the second lease was granted with the concurrence of the mortgagees, or, the mortgagees approbated the lease afterwards by joining in the present suit. The mortgagees and Pedro Domingos D'Sa, the second lessee, launched the suit against the mortgagor and the appellant Fazel Mohamed Champ...
Hugh Francis Hoole and Others Vs. Royal Trust Co. and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jul-22-1930
The Lord Chancellor: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Horwood ,C.J. and Higgins, J.) dated 1st March 1929, affirming a judgment of Kent, J., dated 5th December 1927. These judgments were pronounced in an action of account brought by the plaintiffs appellants against the firm of C.F.Bannett and Co. now represented by the defendants respondent and the issue in the action with which the present appeal is concerned is as to the alleged liability of the plaintiff to account to the defendants for the balance of the proceeds of 720 casks of Labrador codfish consigned by the defendants to Genoa in November 1921 for sale. With regard to this consignment which was made by the steamship "Kriton," the defendants' case is that it was sent to Genoa to be sold by the plaintiffs' sub-agents there. These sub agents, Messrs. -urlo and Co. by name, in fact disposed of the fish and acknowledged to the plaintiffs that they had received in respect thereof 38s. a hundre...
Jagmohan Singh and Another Vs. Pandit Sri Nath and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jul-22-1930
Sir George Lowndes: In this appeal the Board have again to consider a question which has been, discussed under different guises in a number of cases within the last few years, viz., whether, under Hindu law, a woman taking immovable property by gift from her husband has power to alienate it. The most recent decision on the subject is in Shalig Ram v. Bawa Charanjit Lal (1) which cited and followed the judgment of Lord Buckmaster in Bhaidas Shivdas v. Bai Gulab (2). Reference was also made to Ramachandra Rao v. Ramachandra Rao (3), in which Lord Buckmaster made certain remarks explanatory of the decision in Surajmani V. Rabi Nath Ojha (4), another case in which a widow's power of alienation had been called in question, but their Lordships have no doubt that these remarks were not intended to qualify in any way the pronouncement in Bhaidas Shivdas v. Bai Gulab (2). There is also an exhaustive judgment of Sir John Edge in Sasiman Chowdhurain v. Shib Navayan Chowdhury (5), to which Lord Bu...
Senaji Kapurchand and Others Vs. Pannaji Devichand
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jul-18-1930
The decision of the High Court which went up to Privy Council is as follows: Kumaraswami Sastri, Offg. C.J.: This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge in a suit for dissolution of partnership and the taking of partnership accounts. The plaint states that the partnership was formed between four firms which were unregistered. They were four unregistered firms which according to the plaint entered into one partnership in respect of certain bales of yarn. It is alleged that business was carried on and profits accrued and the prayer is that an account be taken of the profits due to the plaintiffs and given to them. When the appeal was taken up it was found that the total number of persons constituting the four firms which entered into this partnership to deal as a combined concern with these goods consisted of 22 persons and the question arose as to how far on the plaint such a partnership would be legal having regard to S. 4, Cl. (2), Companies Act, which states that: "...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »