Privy Council Court February 1933 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.
Garudas Vs. Mahant Laldas and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-28-1933
SIR GEORGE LOWNDES: The only question for determination in this appeal is as to rival claims to succession under the Hindu law between uncles of the whole and of the half blood. The parties are Grihastha Gosains, known as Mahants, and are governed by the Benares School of the Mitakshara. Their relationship will sufficiently appear by the following abbreviated pedigree in which names of females are printed in italics : The property in question consists of 28 villages of the Ilaka of Lormi in the Bilaspur District of the Central Provinces, which came to Ramkrishnadas on a family partition. On his death they passed to his son Bhagwatdas, who died without issue on 30th November 1912. The villages then went to his mother, Rajkuar, as his heir, and on her death in 1914 to his paternal grandmother Phulkuar. She died on 23rd October 1922, when the disputed succession opened, the rival claimants being Garuddas, the father's brother of the whole blood, and Laldas and Bajrangdas, his half brothe...
Rhodesia Railways, Ltd. Vs. Resident Commissioner and Treasurer of the ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-21-1933
LORD MACMILLAN: The appellants are a railway company which has its head office in London and owns and conducts an important railway undertaking partly situated in the Bechuanaland Protectorate. They are liable to income-tax both in the United Kingdom and in the Protectorate. For the year to the 30th June 1925 the appellants were assessed to income tax by the respondent, the Collector of Income-tax of the Protectorate under the Bechuanaland Protectorate Income-tax Proclamation 1922, in the sum of 19,896 1s., representing income-tax at the rate then chargeable on that part of the appellant's income which was earned in the Protectorate. The tax was paid in November 1925. For the following year to 30th June 1926 the appellants were similarly assessed in the sum of 24,883 3s. 6d., which they paid in October 1926. By S. 17 of the Proclamation it is provided that : ''(1) for the purposes of income tax payable under this Proclamation income shall be assessable without any deduction for income-...
Rhodesia Railways Ltd. Vs. Collector of Income-tax of Bechuanaland Pro ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-21-1933
LORD MACMILLAN: The appellants, Rhodesia Railways, Ltd., a company registered in the United Kingdom, own a railway between Vryburg and Buluwayo. The line is 588 miles in length, of which 112 miles are in the Union of South Africa, 394 in the Bechuanaland Protectorate and 82 in Southern Rhodesia. The company are liable to income- tax under the Bechuanaland Protectorate Income-tax Proclamation, 1922, in respect of the profits derived by them from carrying on their undertaking in the protectorate, In making their return to the respondent of their income for the year of assessment to 30th June 1931, based on their accounts for the year to 30th September 1930, the appellants debited a sum of 252,174 under the heading "renewals of permanent way"and brought out a loss for the year overall of 97,445. In the notice of assessment subsequently sent to the appellants the respondent wrote back the item of 252,174 deducted by the appellants, thereby converting the loss of 97,445 into a profit of 154...
Secy. of State Vs. S. Subramaniya Ayyar
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-20-1933
LORD ATKIN: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Madras in a case in which the plaintiff, who is trustee of a temple, brought a suit for a declaration that the temple was entitled to free irrigation in respect of the village of Viranvayal in Madras. The question depends upon the wording of the Madras Irrigation Cess Act of 1865 as amended. The substance of that is that, by S. 1 (a), whenever water is supplied or used for the purpose of irrigation from any river, stream, channel, tank or work belonging to or constructed by Government, it shall be lawful for Government to levy a cess. There is a proviso as to zamindars or inamdars possessing rights which they may have got from previous engagements from Government. The village in question lies on the left bank of the river Korayar, and before the year 1890, which appears to be the first year that really comes into question in this case, there can be no doubt on the findings of the Court that the village was accustomed to b...
Ram Raghubir Lal and Others Vs. United Refineries (Burma) Limited and ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-20-1933
SIR GEORGE LOWNDES: On 15th December 1924, respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as the company) agreed to sell to the firm of Kashi Vishwanath and Co. or their nominees or assigns, certain immovable property, in the Hanthawady District of Burma, comprising 330 acres of land and the buildings and plant of an oil refinery erected thereon. The members of the said firm were the first two appellants before the Board and a third partner now deceased and represented by appellant 4. The consideration for the sale was set out in the agreement and included the sum of Rs. 2,00,000, which was to be paid three months after the registration of the sale-deed. On 15th January 1925 the sale-deed was executed by the company as vendors, the conveyance being made by the direction of the firm to appellant 3 as their nominee. Neither the firm nor any member of it was a party to the deed, but the direction to convey to appellant 3 was recited therein, and a declaration to that effect under the signature of ...
Jagdishwar Dayal Singh Vs. Dwarka Singh and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-14-1933
LORD THANKERTON: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated 17th January 1929, which reversed a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Palamau, dated 17th December 1925, and decreed the plaintiffs' suit with costs. The appellant, who is defendant 1 in the suit, is the proprietor of the Lokiya Narainpur estate, which includes villages Maran, Rouni, Bedra and an 8 annas share of Chowreah. The rule of primogeniture obtains in the appellant's family. At some time prior to 1865 his ancestor made a khorposh grant to the ancestor of original defendant 2, of defendants 3 and 4 and of Maheshanand, the deceased husband of defendant 5. Original defendant 2 died pending suit and his two sons were substituted. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 had an 8 annas share in the khorposh subjects and Maheshanand had the remaining 8 annas share. The contesting respondents in this appeal are the plaintiffs in the suit, and they are in possession of mukarrari rights in Mauza Ma...
Bai Krishnabai Vs. Framroz Edulji Dinshah and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-03-1933
SIR DINSHAH MULLA: The main question involved in this appeal is as to the effect of a decree passed by the High Court at Bombay, dated 26th January 1931, under the following circumstances: Puranmal G. Shinghanee, a very wealthy Marwadi Hindu (hereinafter called the testator), died on 20th December 1928, leaving him surviving a widow, who is the appellant before the Board, and no issue. He left a will dated 6th May 1925, and a codicil thereto dated 23rd March 1928 whereof he appointed the respondents executors and trustees. The will and codicil have been duly admitted to probate. The testator by his will directed his executors to allow the appellant during her widowhood to reside in his house at Fatehpur in the Jeypur State, and to pay her the relatively small sum of Rs. 200 per month during her widowhood for her maintenance. Probably by reason of his belief in the truth of a charge made by him against the appellant in his will but no longer maintained, the testator declared that he was...
Gummidela Anantapadmanabhaswami Vs. Official Receiver of Secunderabad ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-02-1933
LORD THANKERTON: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 2nd October 1930, which set aside a judgment and order dated 23rd April 1929, made by the same Court in its original civil jurisdiction. The appellant is in right of a money decree for Rs. 53,230-9-0 dated 15th June 1926, made in the Bombay High Court in favour of the appellant's father against three persons, who may be conveniently referred to as the judgment-debtors. At that time the judgment-debtors were the plaintiffs in a suit then pending in the Madras High Court for partition of certain joint family property between the plaintiffs' and the defendants' branches of the family. The Madras partition suit had been instituted in 1922, and on 5th December 1922 a preliminary decree by consent had been made, declaring inter alia certain properties and business assets involved in the suit to be the exclusive properties of the plaintiffs' branch and directing certain interim payments of money t...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›