Privy Council Court July 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.
Zahirul-said Alvi Vs. Lachhmi Narayan
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jul-15-1932
Lord Blanesburgh: In this case the only question their Lordships have now to determine is whether the decree appealed from, of 21st October 1926, which in terms is not expressed to be by consent , was in fact made by consent. In obedience to an order of His Majesty in Council of 12th February 1931, [AIR 1931 PC 107], made in accordance with advice humbly tendered by their Lordships to His Majesty, a remit was sent to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces, being the Court which pronounced the decree in question requesting that Court to inform their Lordships whether or not the decree was in fact made by consent. Their Lordships have now been informed by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in a report made to the Board, that its judgment of 21st October 1926, and the decree appealed from following thereon, were professedly made with the consent of the parties: that is to say, the decree was consensual and did not, except so far as authorized by consent, embod...
Mohammad Afsal Khan Vs. Abdul Rahman and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jul-14-1932
Sir Dinshah Mulla: The questions involved in this appeal relate to the effect of a partition of joint properties effected by a decree, where the decree is one made on an award, on a prior mortgage and a prior attachment of the share of one of the co-owners in some of the properties. Haji Malik Rahman, a Mahomedan, died in or about 1910, leaving a will dated 12th June 1910 whereby ha devised certain immovable properties to his son Malik Mohib Ali, who is respondent 3 in this appeal, and his two grandsons Sardar Ali and Sabz Ali, in three equal shares. On the death of Haji Malik Rahman, respondent 3 entered into possession of the properties and recovered the rents and profits thereof on behalf of the family. Sabz Ali died in 1914 leaving two children, who are respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal, and on his death his one-third share in the above-mentioned properties passed to them. Respondents 1 and 2 were both minors at the date of their father's death and also at the date of the suit out...
Australian Investment Trust, Limited Vs. Strand and Pitt Street Proper ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jul-07-1932
Lord Tomlin: This is an appeal brought pursuant to leave granted by the Supreme Court of New South Wales from an order dated 9th April 1931, of that Court in its equitable jurisdiction (Long Innes, J.), allowing the respondents' demurrer to the appellants' statement of claim in the action. In the action the appellants are seeking to have the share register of the respondents rectified by the deletion therefrom of the name of the appellants as the holders of 16,308 shares of 1 in the capital of the respondents. The question at issue is whether an underwriting agreement made on 15th April 1929 and subsequently adopted by the respondents pursuant to which the shares in question were allotted to the appellants is, as the appellants allege, ultra vires the respondents. Both parties to the appeal are companies limited by shares incorporated in New South Wales under the provisions of the New South Wales Companies Acts, 1899 to 1918. The New South Wales Companies Acts, 1899 to 1918, contain no...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›