Privy Council Court December 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.
V.M. Abdul Rahman and Others Vs. D.K. Cassim and Sons and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-19-1932
SIR GEORGE LOWNDES: The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted in the name of respondent 1 firm (hereinafter referred to as respondent 1) on the original side of the Rangoon High Court, alleging, in effect, a conspiracy between the two named defendants to ruin the business of respondents 1, and claiming Rs.5,00,000 by way of damages. The first of the two defendants was the appellant, V. M. Abdul Rahman, now deceased, and represented by his heirs. The other was respondent 2, who does not appear before the Board. After the hearing of the suit had commenced in the trial Court respondents 1 wereapparently upon their own application adjudicated insolvents. On this being brought to the notice of the Judge, he on 13th February 1929 adjourned the trial, and gave a month's time to the Official Assignee to consider whether he would proceed with the suit on behalf of the creditors. On 11th March 1929 the Judge being then engaged in the Criminal Sessions, the matter seems to have come...
Abdulla Asghar Ali and Others Vs. Ganesh Das Vig
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-19-1932
SIR GEORGE LOWNDES: The principal question in this appeal is whether an application for the execution of a decree is time-barred under the provisions of Art. 182 (2), Sch. 1, Lim. Act, 1908. The article allows a period of three years only for such an application from the date of the decree, "or where there has been an appeal, the date of the final decree or order of the appellate Court."It is not disputed that if in the present case the period is to be reckoned from the date of the decree, the application was out of time, nor, per contra, if the respondents can take advantage of a certain order of the appellate Court, that it was within time. The suit out of which the appeal arises was launched as long ago as 1912. Some four years later it came up in appeal to this Board, but was sent back for trial in the Baluchistan Courts, where the proceedings dragged on for another 12 years. On 17th November 1920, the decree of which execution is sought was passed in favour of the plaintiff, Ganes...
Shadi Lal Vs. Lal Bahadur and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-19-1932
SIR DINSHAH MULLA: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree, dated 10th November 1926, of the High Court at Allahabad which varied a judgment and decree, dated 31st July 1923, of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly. On 20th December 1905, Munshi Inder Sahai executed a mortgage of his share of a village situated at Bareilly to secure payment of Rs. 7,000 to him by Rai Kishun Lal on interest at the rate of 7-annas per cent per mensem. The mortgage was one with possession, and the mortgagee was put in possession of the property on the same day. The mortgage was for a term of five years. On 15th June 1906, the mortgagor executed a document called zamanatnama (security bond) by which he created a charge on two other properties, the charge to operate if the property mortgaged by the deed of 1905 was found to be insufficient for payment of the mortgage debt in full. It was stated in the document that both these properties belonged to the mortgagor. Some time thereafter the mortgagor died le...
Jnanendra Mohan Bhaduri and Another Vs. Rabindra Nath Chakravarty
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-19-1932
SIR DINSHAH MULLA: This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated 11th December 1930, which set aside an order of the Third Subordinate Judge of Hooghly dated 29th June 1929, and directed that an application for execution of a decree presented by the respondent to the Court of the Subordinate Judge be entertained as an application for execution of an award. The appellants are two of the executors of the will of Rajendra Lal Goswami, who died on 21st August 1917. The testator's widow, Annapurna Debi (since deceased) was also an executrix of the will. The will is dated 18th November 1916, and it was admitted to probate on 19th December 1917. The appellants are residuary legatees under the will. The respondent, the testator's widow, and Radhika Lal Goswami are beneficiaries under the will. Disputes arose as to the construction of the will, and by an agreement in writing, dated 22nd December 1917, the matters in difference were referred to ...
Hansraj Gupta and Others Vs. Dehra Dun-mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-16-1932
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: For the facts relevant to this appeal their Lordships refer to the judgment which was delivered in July last in the Privy Council Appeal No. 127 of 1930, Hansraj Gupta v. N. P. Asthana (1). The re-argument, therein foreshadowed, of the appeal No. 86 of 1930, has taken place, and their Lordships now proceed to consider whether all or any of the three sums in question in that appeal (viz., Rs. 27,000, Rs. 35,000 and Rs. 7,703-13-0) are or is recoverable. The principal and most difficult points turn upon the true construction and effect of the Limitation Act, 1908, because their Lordships are of opinion that, apart from any questions of limitation, the three sums in question are all recoverable by the liquidators. This is obviously so as regards the Rs. 7,703-13-0. As regards the other two sums, it was contended by the appellants that these were not recoverable upon the ground that in each case the sum was paid as a deposit or earnest to secure the due fulfilment...
Radhakisson Gopikisson Vs. Balmukund Ramchandra
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-15-1932
LORD THANKERTON: The suit in which the present appeal arises was instituted by the appellants on 21st November 1928, in the High Court of Judicature (original jurisdiction) at Bombay against the respondents for recovery of the balance due in respect of a series of transactions in cotton carried out by the appellants as commission agents on behalf of the respondents. Various grounds of defence were put forward by the respondents, but only two of these are involved in the present appeal, viz. : (1) that the suit was not maintainable under the provisions of the Bombay Cotton Contracts Act No. 14 of 1922 and Art. 96, Articles of Association of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd., which were applicable to these transactions and under which arbitration was a condition precedent to any suit in Court ; and (2) that the transactions did not comply with the statutory by-laws of the Association and were therefore rendered void by the provisions of the Act. The trial Judge (Kemp, J.) on 5th No...
Rai Bishunath Prasad Singh Vs. Rani Chandika Prasad Kumari and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-15-1932
LORD BLANESBURGH: In this case many questions were canvassed in the Courts in India but all, except one, have passed into history. They survive merely as an excuse for the over-elaborate and bulky record which is before their Lordships. The one issue which remains effective concerns a moiety share of a taluka known as Jakhanian in the Jaunpur District in the Province of Agra, which by a registered deed of gift dated 16th September 1862, was given by Pirthipal Singh, the head of his family, to Mt. Balraj Kunwar, his daughter-in-law. The question is whether that lady had under the deed power to make alienations of the property giving to the respondents titles which are valid after her death. That question has been answered in the affirmative by the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur and the result is embodied in his decree of 21st December 1921, which on appeal was affirmed by a decree of the High Court of. Judicature at Allahabad, dated 2nd March 1926. The surviving plaintiff claiming under t...
Don Charles Weerasekera Vs. Hettige Don John Peiris
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-09-1932
SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON: This is an appeal by Don Charles Weerasekera, who was the plaintiff in the suit, against a decree of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon, dated 20th January 1931, whereby an order of the District Court of Colombo, dated 15th July 1930, was set aside and the plaintiff's action was dismissed. The suit was brought by the plaintiff against the defendant Hettige Don John Peiris, claiming that certain immovable property situated within the Municipality and District of Colombo, and described in the schedule of the plaint, should be partitioned in terms of the Partition Ordinance 10 of 1863, and for such other and further relief as to the Court should seem meet. The claim was based upon a deed, dated 11th March 1904, executed by Ahamadoe Lebbe Marikar Arisie Marikar Hadjiar (hereinafter called the "father") and his son, Arisie M. H. M. S. Hadjiar (hereinafter called the son"), who were Mahomedans of the Shafi sect and resident in the Grown Colony of Ceylon. The de...
truth and sportsman,limited and Another Vs. George Stanley Thompson
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-05-1932
LORD THANKERTON: The appellants seek to have a new trial in an action for libel tried in the Supreme Court of New South Wales before Halse Rogers, J.,and a jury, in which a verdict was given in the respondent's favour for 3,000 damages on 16th September 1930. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, on 6th November 1930, declined to set aside the verdict, and the present appeal is taken against that judgment. The libel was said to be contained in an article published by the appellants in the issue of their newspaper "Truth'' of 3rd March 1929,.which referred to an action heard on 28th February and 1st March 1929, in which the respondent was plaintiff and one Verrender was defendant in the Small Debts Court in Sydney before Judge Camphin. The issues submitted to the jury in the present action stated the damages claimed as 5,000 and the appellants' pleas in defence as (1) a general plea of not guilty, and (2) the statutory plea of publication in good faith for the informat...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›