Privy Council Court November 1932 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.
Jagannath Rao Dani Vs. Rambharosa and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-29-1932
SIR GEORGE LOWNDES: The appellant and the second respondent are the reversionary heirs of Baboo Rao Dani who died on 6th November 1918, leaving him surviving his widow, Anandabai, and no issue. Anandabai died on 27th November 1924, and on 07-04-1926, the suit out of which this appeal arises, was instituted by the reversioners claiming his estate. The defendant to the suit, respondent 1, before the Board, denied their right, alleging title in himself as the duly adopted son of Baboo Rao Dani. The factual of his adoption by Anandabai on 25th April 1920 is not seriously disputed. The issue between the parties is as to its validity in law. The family was found by the trial Judge and was admitted in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner to be governed by the Bombay School of Hindu law, under which a widow has in herself power to adopt', subject only to such restriction if any, as may have been imposed upon her by her husband. The appellant's contention in the present case is that Anandabai...
Alexander Ewan Campbell Vs. Thomus Ernest Rofe
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-28-1932
LORD THANKERTON: This case arises out of the proceedings in the compulsory liquidation of the Marlow-Rolls Theaters, Ltd. (hereinafter called "the company,") of which the appellant is the Official Liquidator. The company, which had a brief existence, was incorporated in New South Wales on 29th December 1928, and went into liquidation on 4th September 1929. The appellant sought to place the respondent on the list of contributories in respect of 8,000 preference shares allotted to him by the directors of the company on 12th March 1929, on the respondent's application therefor dated 7th March 1929. The respondent disputed his liability to be placed on the list of contributories on the ground that no preference shares were ever validity created by the company. There was no resolution of the company creating preference shares, and the sole question in this appeal is whether the directors had power under the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company to issue these shares to the r...
O.A.P.R.M.A.R. Adaikappa Chettiar Vs. Thomas Cook and Son (Bankers) Lt ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-25-1932
LORD ATKIN: This is an appeal from the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon in an action in which the plaintiff sought to recover from the defendants the sum of Rs. 1,70,000 on four cheques or alternatively as money had and received. The action was tried in the District Court of Colombo, where the plaintiff recovered judgment. On appeal to the Supreme Court the judgment of the District Judge was reversed and the action dismissed with costs. The plaintiff is a money-lender carrying on business at Colombo, and the dispute arises out of a series of transactions in which the plaintiff, one M S. Peiris, now deceased, carrying on business as Don Philip and Co., and, as is alleged, the defendants, acting through John Davis, their acting manager, were engaged. Peiris was a trader who before the events in issue had become insolvent; his certificate had been suspended for seven years, but he continued to trade through a former servant in the name of Don Philip and Co. In 1924 the defendant Bank...
Kirtyanand Singh Vs. Prithi Chand Lal Chaudhury
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-22-1932
LORD TOMLIN: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Patna, which affirmed an order dated 19th September 1927, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr. The question arises in this way. On 1st April 1914 a decree was made in certain rent suits by which by consent the present appellants, or their predecessors, obtained a decree for Rs. 1,84,521, besides further interest thereon at 8 annas per cent per month. It was provided by the decree that the plaintiff should not take out execution of the decree until March 1915, so that there was a year's suspension. The present respondent was a consenting party to the decree in his capacity as surety. The result of that apparently is that the decree can under S. 145, Civil PC be executed against him as though he were a party to the suit and the principal debtor. Having obtained that decree, the plaintiffs made a number of applications for execution. The first was made on 23rd June 1915, and apparently was struck off on 24th Ju...
Currimbhoy and Co. Ltd. Vs. L.A. Greet and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-22-1932
LORD THANKERTON: These are two consolidated appeals from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated 23-08-1929, varying a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Asansol, dated 12-10-1928. On 14-05-1924, the present suit was instituted by L. A. Creet against Oosman Jamall and Sons, Limited, for khas possession of certain coal mining lands in Mouza Khandra, for an account of the coal extracted therefrom by Jamalls, and for damages for breach of contract. In the alternative a somewhat unusual decree for specific performance was asked for. In June 1926 Jamalls went into compulsory liquidation, and on 17-07-1926, the liquidator was added as defendant 2 : on 2nd October 1926 the liquidator filed a written statement adopting the written statement filed by Jamalls. On 28th July 1927 Currimbhoy and Co. Ltd. were added as defendant 3, as a party claiming to be interested in the lands in suit under an agreement with Jamalls dated 13th September 1922, and file...
Naresh Mohan Thakur and Others Vs. Brij Mohan Misra and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-22-1932
LORD WRIGHT: This appeal raises only one question, which is a very narrow one, though of considerable importance. The sole matter for determination here is whether the High Court at Patna were right in dismissing the appellants' claim to recover damages from the respondents. The claim was dismissed in toto, and the respondents have contended before their Lordships that the order of the High Court dismissing in toto the claim for damages was correct. The rest of the order of the High Court is not in any way brought in issue before their Lordships. In all other respects, except as to costs, the High Court affirmed the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur. The appellants and the respondents are riparian owners on the river Belasi. The appellants, who were plaintiffs in the action, are the lower riparian owners on that stream, and the respondents are the upper riparian owners. The claim in the action was that the respondents had erected a dam on their part of the stream, which had ...
Nana Kwaku Amoah and Another Vs. Nana Sir Ofori Atta
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-21-1932
LORD TOMLIN : This is an appeal from a judgment of the West African Court of Appeal which dismissed an appeal from the Chief Justice of the Gold Coast Colony, who had refused an application to set aside an award in favour of the respondents made by Hall, J., of the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast, sitting as an arbitrator. The facts which give rise to this appeal are of this nature: There is a province, or kingdom, in the Gold Coast Colony called Abuakwa. The ruler of that province who holds the title of Omanhene, and who occupies the throne or stool of that province, has under him some fourteen subordinate chiefs, the province being divided into fourteen divisions. Each of those chiefs is the Ohene of his particular division. Some of the divisions have, or, at any rate, one of them has, further subdivisions, each of which is ruled in its turn by a still more subordinate chief, known as the Odikro. One of the fourteen divisions of Abuakwa is Asamangkese, and Asamangkese has a subdivisi...
Shyam NaraIn Singh Vs. Suraj NaraIn Pandey and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-18-1932
LORD MACMILLAN: Their Lordships have not found it necessary in this appeal to call upon counsel for the respondents. Counsel for the appellant has very properly accepted the position that the burden lies upon him to establish upon the evidence that the mortgage on which this suit was founded was tainted with immorality in this sense, that it was effected for the purpose of raising money to defray debts incurred by the mortgagor for immoral purposes. The learned Judge of the Subordinate Court decided the case in favour of Mr. Subba Row's client, but in doing so he states that he does not find the evidence sufficient to connect the particular cases of expenditure directly with the acts of immorality alleged. He adds however that it was said for the defence that "they have succeeded in showing that defendant 1 was leading a licentious life and living beyond his means, and there being nothing to show that there was any business on which the loans in question could have been expended, they...
Arthur Andrew Cipriani and Others Vs. Macdonald Burnett
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-17-1932
LORD MACMILLAN: Their Lordships are invited in this case to assume the novel duty of adjudicating as to the winner of a sweepstake. The law of Trinidad is apparently less stringent than that of the United Kingdom on the subject. There the Gambling Prevention Ordinance (Laws of Trinidad and Tobago, 192,Ch. 28) by S. 10 enacts as follows: "Every sale or contract for the sale of a lottery ticket is hereby declared to be void and no action shall be maintained by any person in respect of any such sale or contract, except by the purchaser for the return of the money or other consideration, if any, paid thereon." But by S. 15 it is provided that: "nothing in this Ordinance contained shall apply to any lottery or sweepstake organised and controlled by the Trinidad Turf Club or by any racing club or association affiliated to the Trinidad Turf Club at or in connexion with any race meeting held under the auspices of any such club or association." The sweepstake which has given rise to the present...
Albert Godamune Vs. the King
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-10-1932
LORD TOMLIN: This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon delivered on 3rd March 1931, whereby that Court by a majority answered adversely to the appellant a question of law reserved and referred for the decision of that Court by Lyall-Grant, J., under S. 355 (1), Criminal P. C. of Ceylon (Ordinance No. 15 of 1898) after the conviction and sentence of the appellant at a Session of the Supreme Court in its criminal jurisdiction for the Midland Circuit held at Kandy. S. 355 (1). Criminal P.C. of Ceylon is as follows: "355 (1).When any person has in a trial before a Judge of the Supreme Court acting in the exercise of its original criminal jurisdiction been convicted of an offence and sentenced, the Judge, if he thinks fit, may reserve and refer for the decision of a Court consisting of two or more Judges any question of law which has arisen on the trial, stating in a case signed by him such question with the special circumstanc...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »