Privy Council Court May 1931 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.
imperial Bank of India Vs. Bengal National Bank, Limited (In Liquidati ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-21-1931
Lord Atkin: This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature in Bengal affirming an order of the Court made in its original civil jurisdiction on an application for directions made by the liquidators of the Bengal National Bank, Ltd., the respondents in this appeal. The respondent bank in 1907 was incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1882. On or before 4th May 1923, the respondent bank had borrowed from the Imperial Bank of India, the appellant, hereinafter called the Imperial Bank, the sum of ten lacs with interest, and on 4th May executed and delivered to the Imperial Bank a debenture creating a floating charge on the whole undertaking, properties, assets and interests present and future of the respondent bank as security for the loan. On 1st August 1923, a similar debenture was executed and delivered to the Imperial Bank, creating a similar floating charge as security for a further loan of ten lacs with interest. Both documents were duly registered pur...
Janaki Nath Roy and Others Vs. Dina Nath Kundu and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-20-1931
Lord Russell of Killowen: These consolidated appeals arise out of two ejectment suits which were brought by the appellants, who claimed that they had effectively determined the tenancies of certain premises held by the respondents under two separate leases. The premises in question consisted of a hat, bazar, bandar and ghat, and some other lands at Khankhanapur. The Subordinate Judge decreed both suits and ordered that the plaintiffs recover khas possession. On appeal to the High Court both suits were dismissed. Two points only were argued before this Board, viz. (1) whether the tenancies were capable of being determined by notice at the will of either party, and (2), if the tenancies were capable of being so determined, whether they had been effectively determined. The Subordinate Judge decided both points in favour of the appellants. The High Court decided the first point in favour of the respondents, and accordingly the second point did not call for any determination. The first ques...
Naba Kumar Hazra and Another Vs. Radheshyam Mahish and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-19-1931
Sir George Lowndes: These appeals are the sequel of a case which came before the Board in November 1923, and is reported as Nagendrabala Dasi v. Dinanath Mahish (1). The facts are stated in the judgment then delivered, by Lord Dunedin, and it is not necessary to repeat them in detail. The result of that case was that the present appellant was held to be a trustee for the mortgagors of a mortgage decree, and also of certain properties which he had purchased at a sale in execution of the decree, in the name of his wife, the present appellant 2, and was ordered to transfer the decree and the properties to one set of mortgagors, the plaintiffs in the suit, upon their recouping to him the sum he had paid for the purchase of the decree plus the amount of some additional payments which he had made to save the properties from being taken for other executions. There were three other sets of mortgagors who were defendants to the suit; the accounts between them were evidently of a complicated nat...
Pazundaung Bazaar Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of the ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-19-1931
Lord Russell of Killowen: The question involved in this appeal is whether certain sums which were charged to the appellants by the Rangoon Corporation, by way of fees for licences to keep open private markets in the city of Rangoon, were validly charged by the Corporation under the powers contained in the City of Rangoon Municipal Act 1928. This Act may conveniently be referred to as the Act of 1922. The provisions of the Act of 1922, under which the licence fees in question were charged, are S. 125, which provides that no one shall keep open a private market without a licence granted by the Corporation; and S. 178, which empowers the Corporation to charge a fee for such licence. The relevant provisions of S. 178 run thus: " 178.-(2) Whenever it is provided in this Act that a licence or a permission may be given for any purpose, such licence or permission shall specify the period for which, and the conditions and limitations subject to which, the same is granted, and shall be signed in...
Henry Greer Robinson Vs. State of South Australia
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-19-1931
Lord Blanesburgh: There is now in Australia a concourse of claimants seeking to establish against the State of South Australia a liability to them individually for the alleged negligence of its servants and agents in the execution of the duties of Government under the Wheat Harvest Acts, 1915-17. Under these Acts a Wheat Marketing Scheme was established, the substance of which was that all growers in South Australia had to deliver their wheat to the Government, which assumed the duty of accepting and marketing it and distributing the net proceeds among the growers or their assigns in proportion to the quantities of wheat delivered. In the case of Welden v. Smith (1), it was contended by the State that the Wheat Harvest Acts involved on behalf of Government political rather than trading operations and responsibilities. But that contention was not accepted by this Board, which adopted the view that the State was, under these Acts, in effect, carrying on the business of marketing and sell...
S.P.A. Annamalay Chetty Vs. B. A. Thornhill
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-19-1931
Lord Thankerton: This appeal is from a decree of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon, dated 13th March 1928, confirming a decree of the District Court of Ratnapura, dated 31st August 1927 and made in Action No. 4637, in which the appellant is plaintiff, and the only question in the appeal is whether the suit is barred by reason of the proceedings in a former suit by the appellant against the respondent, which was Action No. 4122 in the same Court. Action No. 4122 was instituted by the appellant on 19th June 1924 to recover a balance alleged to be due by the respondent upon a running account in respect of moneys advanced and goods sold and delivered, with interest to the date of the suit. The suit was instituted in the name under which the appellant carried on business, and the respondent inter alia pleaded that the appellant was precluded from enforcing his rights under the contract set out in the plaint, as he had failed to register his business name as prescribed by the Busines...
Alfred Ernest Mitchell and Others Vs. Carr Lazarus Phillips and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-18-1931
Lord Tomlin: In the suit out of which this appeal arises the appellants as legal personal representatives of a deceased creditor are seeking to recover from the respondents as guarantors part of a debt due and owing from the principal debtor. Before the trial Judge the appellants succeeded but on appeal the High Court of Judicature in Bengal reversed the judgment of the trial Judge and dismissed the suit. On 14th February 1927 one Galstaun mortgaged real estate in and near Calcutta and personal estate of various kinds to Arathoon Stephen the appellants' testator to secure a loan of Rs. 40,00,000 and interest. Stephen in fact borrowed the money from the Imperial Bank in order to lend it to Galstaun. On 9th February 1927 the respondents in connexion with the transaction had executed in favour of Stephen a guarantee in writing in the following form : " 1. In consideration of your having at our request agreed to obtain a loan of Rs. 40,00,000 bearing interest at six per cent per annum from...
Raghubans NaraIn Singh and Others Vs. Khub Lal Singh and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-12-1931
Lord Blanesburgh: This case has, in one form or another, been litigated for many years, and it has necessitated calculations of acreage and undivided interests of much complexity and nicety. But the question now at issue between the parties is simple. The appellants (it will be convenient to refer under that description to them and their predecessors-in-interest for the time being) are cosharer maliks of certain towzis in Mauza Madanpur Sri Ram, in the district of Monghyr. Their share was in lease to the predecessor of the first party respondent (it will be convenient to refer under the title respondent to the first party respondent and his predecessors-in-interest for the time being), himself a cosharer and also lessee of some other cosharers, and in possession of 221 bighas or thereby of khudkasht lands on which indigo was grown. After the expiration of the lease from them to the respondent the appellants on 23rd July 1909, filed a suit in the First Court of the Subordinate Judge at ...
Tirupparankundaram Etc., Madura Devasthanams Vs. Alikhan Sahib and Oth ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-12-1931
Sir George Lowndes: Their Lordships have to determine in this appeal the ownership of a barren hill in the Madura District of Madras. The claimants before the Board are the Government represented by the Secretary of State for India in Council, and the Tirupparankundram Temple. The Mahomedan community, who have a mosque on the highest point of the hill, were parties to the proceedings in the Indian Courts, but they have not been represented on the present appeal. The Madura Taluk Board was also a party to the suit but has not appeared on the appeal. In the trial Court, the temple, represented by its manager, was the plaintiff. He claimed the whole hill, with the exception of certain cultivated and assessed lands and the site of the mosque, as temple property. The Mahomedan defendants asserted their ownership of the particular eminence upon which the mosque stands, and of a portion of the main hill known as the Nellitope. The Secretary of State, who will be referred to as the respondent,...
Chhatra Kumari Devi Vs. Mohan Bikram Shah and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-08-1931
Sir George Lowndes: The facts in this case have been stated with admirable clarity and precision in the judgment of the High Court and their Lordships will only restate them so far as is necessary for the understanding of the conclusions to which they are led. Raja Mohun Bikram Shah, scion of the royal house of Nepal, but resident at Benares, died on 18th April 1912. He was the owner of a valuable estate known as the Ramnagar Raj, and of other property in Benares. It was contended in the Courts in India that this property was all " ancestral " in his hands, but both Courts have negatived the contention. The question has been raised again before the Board, but their Lordships do not think it necessary to discuss the matter at length as they are satisfied that the conclusion come to in India on this point is correct. The Raja had married four wives, of whom the youngest, Sri 5 Rani Chhatra Kumari Devi, survived him. It will be convenient to refer to her as the appellant and to Prince Sri...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »