Privy Council Court April 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P. and Berar Vs. S.M. Chitnavis
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-26-1932
Lord Russell of Killowen: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces, upon a reference of questions of law, made at the instance of an assessee, under S. 66 (2), Income-tax Act 1922, which will hereafter be referred to as the Act. The questions involved were considered by the said Court to be of such importance that the case was (after argument before two Commissioners) re argued before a Full Bench. Two separate and distinct matters were raised for decision before the said Court, and its adjudication upon each was adverse to the present appellant. In respect of one of such matters he made no attempt to appeal, and the dispute in regard thereto is at an end. In regard to the other matter however he applied to the said Court for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, and in response to that application the Court certified that the requirements of S. 109 (c), Civil PC 1908, were fulfilled, "inasmuch as a question of great public imp...
Vacuum Oil Company Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-21-1932
Lord Blanesburgh: The appellants an American company, with headquarters in New York, are engaged in the manufacture of various grades of oil used in the lubrication of machinery. One of their specialities is an oil known as "mobiloil" specially manufactured for the lubricating of motor oars. Large quantities of '"mobiloil" are imported into India and are sold by the appellants to retailers in one gallon tins. No question however, is in these proceedings raised as to any oils so imported and sold. They were the subject of another suit to be referred to later. This case is concerned only with the import duties on the appellants' machinery lubricating oils, including incidentally ' Mobiloil" in drums or barrels, which are imported into India through the Port of Bombay and are thereafter sold by the appellants direct to consumers. The dispute is as to the proper basis upon which these imported oils are assessable to duty under the Sea Customs Act .1878. Since such an issue must ultimately ...
Sardar Nisar Ali Khan Vs. Mohammad Ali Khan
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-21-1932
Lord Tomlin: These consolidated appeals are concerned with four properties, one in Oudh and three in the Punjab, of which at his death on 28th October 1923, the late Sir Fateh Ali Khan, K. C. J. E., was in possession. Nisar Ali Khan, who is the appellant in the first appeal and respondent in the second appeal, and is hereinafter called the appellant, is Sir Fateh's son. Mohammad Ali Khan, who is the respondent in the first appeal and the appellant in the second appeal, and is hereinafter called the respondent, is a first cousin of Sir Fateh, being a son of Sir Fateh's uncle Nawab Nasir Ali Khan, who died on 19th November 1896, in possession of the four properties. On the death of Nawab Nasir, Sir Fateh entered into possession of the estates in question and remained in possession thereafter until his death. The following pedigree sufficiently explains the descent of Sir Fateh and the Positions in the family of the appellant and respondent respectively : The family are Shiah Mahomedans o...
Nagendra Nath Dey and Another Vs. Suresh Chandra Dey and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-21-1932
Sir Dinshah Mulla: This appeal raises a question as to the construction of Art. 182, Sch. 1, Lim. Act, 1908. In a suit brought many years ago for partition of certain properties held jointly by the parties to this appeal and their predecessors, a receiver was appointed with power to raise a loan on the security of a mortgage of the properties. The receiver borrowed Rs. 18,000 from some of the cosharers, and on 10th July 1894, he executed a mortgage of the properties in their favour. Amongst the mortgagees were Nagendra Nath Dey and Pulin Behari Dey, who are the appellants before this Board, and Madan Mohan and his son, who are respondents 24 and 27 respectively. The position at that date was that some of the cosharers were mortgagees and all the cosharers were mortgagors. In 1907, after the shares of the several cosharers in the partition suit had been allotted to them and the receiver discharged, Madan Mohan and his son instituted the suit out of which the present appeal arises in the...
William Abercrombie Shaw Vs. Frederick Chater Jack
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-19-1932
Sir George Lowndes: The respondent in this appeal was until June 1926 an administrative officer of the Kenya Civil Service. He went to England on leave in March of that year. Shortly before his departure he arranged with the appellant, who was an advocate and solicitor practising in the Colony and having his office in Eldoret, for the investment of certain moneys during his absence. Somewhat intricate instructions were given by him to the appellant, which it is not necessary to consider in detail. The result, so far as this appeal is concerned, was that the appellant invested for him on 25th August 1926, a sum of 2,200 upon the mortgage of a farm in the Trans Nzoia District, belonging to a Mrs. Driscoll, and comprising 1,174 acres. The respondent returned to Kenya as a settler in October 1920, by which time the value of farm lands in this district wag depreciating greatly. He was unable to realise his security, and in March 1929, filed a suit against the mortgagor and brought the prope...
Maung SeIn Done Vs. Ma Pan Nyun and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-12-1932
Lord Russell of Killowen: In this appeal their Lordships find it unnecessary to decide upon the merits of the case as in their opinion the plea of res judicata must prevail. In order however to explain how the plea arises, it is necessary to relate the facts in some detail. The four parties to this appeal are two sons and two daughters of Chan Sit Shan and Ma Myit, his wife. Chan Sit Shan had three other children born of this wife, two of whom died before their father; the third died in 1903. Chan Sit Shan was a Chinaman, who was born in China and settled in Pyapon, Burma. There he married Ma Myit, a native of Pyapon, who before her marriage was a Burmese Buddhist. At some time, Chan Sit Shan went back to China and there married a second wife, a Chinawoman, named Ma Kee Ya. He returned to Burma with this second wife and a Chinese boy named Pwin Lit whom they had adopted. Subsequently his wife, Ma Kee Ya, bore him a daughter, who was named Ma Kyin Myaing. Chan Sit Shan died in 1902 inte...
Mohammad Raza and Others Vs. Mt. Abbas Bandi Bibi
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-12-1932
Sir George Lowndes: The facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are within a small compass. In 1868 one Sughra Bibi brought a suit against her cousin Afzal Husain, claiming a half-share in certain immovable properties in Oudh which had been entered in his name at the post-mutiny settlement. The litigation ended in a compromise upon which a decree was passed in the suit on 19th September 1870. The compromise was in the following terms: "We are Mt. Sughra Bibi, plaintiff, claimant of a share in Mahal Shadipur, Nusha, and c., pargana Tanda, and Surhurpur, and Syed Afzal Hasan, son of Syed Tegh Ali Qanungo, Lambardar of the aforesaid Mahal, defendant. Whereas between the parties to the above-mentioned case in which a share is claimed an amicable settlement has been arrived at to the effect that the plaintiff's marriage by way of nikah with the defendant may be performed in the next month, accordingly in view of a marriage settlement, there no longer exists any dispute regarding a s...
Shiba Prasad Singh Vs. Rani Prayag Kumari Debi and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-07-1932
Sir Dinshah Mulla: The questions involved in these appeals relate to the right of succession to an estate known as the Jheria Raj, situated in the district of Manbhum, and other property, moveable and immovable, left by Raja Durga Prasad. The suit out of which the appeals arise was instituted by the widows of Raja Durga Prasad in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Perganas against Shiba Prasad Singh, a distant agnatic relation of the Raja, to recover the estate and other property. On 3rd November 1921, the Subordinate Judge passed a decree whereby he allowed the suit in part and dismissed it as to the rest. Both parties appealed to the High Court at Calcutta, and the High Court by its decree dated 17th August 1925, allowed the appeals in part. From this decree of the High Court both parties have appealed to His Majesty in Council. The parties are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law. The Raj is ancient and ancestral, and it is impartible by custom, and succession to...
Mohindar Singh and Another Vs. Emperor
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-05-1932
Viscount Dunedin: Their Lordships have frequently stated that they do not sit as a Court of criminal appeal. For them to interfere with a criminal sentence there must be something so irregular or so outrageous as to shock the very basis of justice. Such an instance was found in Dillet's case (1), which has always been held to be the leading authority on such matters. In the present case the only real point is as to the meaning and effect of a section of the Evidence Act. The petitioners contended that a wrong view had been taken of the matter, also that upon a proper reading of the section there was an insufficiency of evidence to warrant the conviction. Those are merely points for a Court of criminal appeal. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the petition should be dismissed. Petition dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›