Privy Council Court November 1934 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.
Seth Pratapsingh Moholalbhai and Another Vs. Keshavlal Harilal Setahva ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-27-1934
Lord Atkin: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay reversing the judgment of the Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad who had given judgment for the plaintiffs. The suit was brought on a surety bond given by the defendants guaranteeing a loan on mortgage, which the plaintiffs had lent to one Desai Krishnalal Narsinhlal whose wife was a sister of the respondents. The defence was that the sureties had been released by the subsequent dealings between the creditors and the principal debtor. It appears that before the mortgage in question was executed the principal debtor, a pleader in Ahmedabad, had given mortgages over four different parts of his immovable property to various creditors to secure loans which were then outstanding. The transaction with the creditors, who appear to be administrators of a charitable fund, was in the nature of a consolidation mortgage whereby Krishnalal was to borrow Rs. 1,25,000, which was to be applied in redeeming the four properties, the l...
Maung SeIn Shwe Vs. Maung SeIn Gyi and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-20-1934
Sir Lancelot Sanderson: This is an appeal by Maung Sein Shwe by special leave from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon, dated 13th June 1929, which affirmed the decree of the District Court of Myaungmya, dated 3rd April 1928. The suit was brought by Maung Sein Gyi (hereinafter called the plaintiff) against defendant 1, Maung Htin Gyaw, the father of Maung Sein Shwe, who was defendant 2 and is hereinafter called the appellant, Maung Po Chein, hereinafter called defendant 3, and defendants 4 and 5, who were assignees of the plaintiff and defendant 3 of some of the property in dispute. At the time of the suit the appellant was a minor and was represented by his guardian and father Maung Htin Gyaw. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for the administration of the estate of U Po Thet, a Burmese Buddhist, who died in the Myaungmya district on 4th January 1924, leaving a considerable fortune, and the question in this appeal relates to the succession to the said estate. The f...
William Francts O'Connor Vs. Gordon Waldron
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-08-1934
LORD ATKIN: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada affirming a judgment of the First Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario affirming a judgment of Orde, J. The original judgment was given on a motion by the defendant to dismiss the plaintiff's action for slander on the ground that it was frivolous and vexations. The question is whether the defendant in uttering the words was protected by the absolute privilege which is given to words spoken by a Judge. The statement of claim alleges that the plaintiff is a barrister-at-law of the provinces of Ontario and Nova Scotia, and that the defendant published, concerning the plaintiff in relation to his profession and practice, to seven named persons the words following: A very odious counsel. A lawyer cannot advise a wrong or a crime any more than anybody else. He has no privilege to do that. Well, then, you had full knowledge of the scheme. Was it you who gave to O'Conor the contrivance of effecting a cri...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›