Privy Council Court June 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.
Jehangir Shapoorji Taraporevala Vs. Reverend , Secretary of the Bombay ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-27-1932
Lord Wright: The appellant in the case is a photographer who in 1913 took a lease for ten years of certain premises owned by the Bombay Tract and Book Society, hereinafter called the Society, and later, in 1925, took a renewal of that lease for a further ten years from 1923. In 1927 the Society sold the property, subject to the appellants leasehold interest, to one Kavarana. The appellant claims that this sale was in breach of an obligation undertaken to him by the Society in 1913 in consideration of his entering them into the lease, and ho claims specific performance as under that obligation. The respondent is sued as secretary of the Society which is a charitable society in Bombay, formed according to its memorandam of association to circulate religions tracts, and managed by a committee, and with three trustees in whom its property was vested with powers of disposal. The secretary was named in the regulations to the proper person by whom the Society was to sue or be sued. The Societ...
Mohammad Astam Khan and Others Vs. Feroze Shah
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-24-1932
Sir Lancelot Sanderson: This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the Judicial Commissioner of the North West Frontier Province, dated 18th January 1930, amending a decree dated 11th November 1925, as well as from the decree as amended and the subsequent order dated 2Gth June 1930, in execution granting mesne profits to the plaintiff-respondent. The suit was brought on 12th May 1922 by the plaintiff, K. S. Mian Feroze Shah in the first instance against Mohammad Afzal Khan praying for a decree for possession of certain lands in the villages of Ahmadabad and Narai by specific performance of an alleged agreement dated 1st May 1921 by means of the execution and registration of a sale deed and for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 4,520 and for such other and further relief as the Court might deem equitable. The defendant, Mohammad Afzal, pleaded in his written statement, among other pleas, that he had parted with his rights and possession in the lands in the said villag...
Lasa DIn Vs. Mt. Gulab Kunwar and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-21-1932
Sir George Lowndes: The only question in this appeal is as to the date upon which the principal money became due under a mortgage of certain immovable property in the Lucknow District. Upon this hangs an important question of limitation and the issue of the appeal. The mortgage is dated 26th July 1912, and purports to be for six years from that date. Apart therefore from the provisions of a particular clause in the deed, to be presently referred to the mortgage money would have become due on 26th July 1918, and under Art. 132. Sch. 1, Lim. Act, 1908, the mortgagee would have a further 12 years in which to bring his suit. The article runs as follows. Description of suit. Period of limitation. Time from which period begins to run. 132.-To enforce payment of money charged upon immovable property. Twelve years ... Where the money sued for becomes due. The appellant is the mortgagee. He brought a suit praying for a mortgage decree in the usual form on 28th February 1928, i.e., within 12 y...
Erroll Mackay Vs. Maharaja Dhiraj Kameshwar Singh and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-16-1932
Lord Wright: The questions in this appeal are whether respondent 1, who was substituted for his father as defendant on the latter's death, is responsible in damages, and if so, in what sum to the appellant, who was plaintiff in the action. The claim was on a contract dated 9th November 1919, for the sale of 200 maunds of new crop Java indigo seed at Rs. 22 a maund excluding bags, f.o.r. Purnea, railway station, delivery to be made in April 1920, the plaintiff paying (as in fact he did) on the date of the contract Rs. 1,000 as earnest money. The first question is whether that contract was made, as it purported to be made, by one Hervey (who was on the plaint joined as a defendant in the suit, but was dismissed from it on 12th March 1924) as agent for the defendant, who will be hereafter referred to under the description of respondent, which term will be applied equally both to the original and the substituted defendant. Hervey was at the date of the contract manager of the respondent's ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›