Privy Council Court June 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.
Abdul Latif Khan and Others Vs. Mt. Abadi Begam and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-26-1934
Sir John Wallis: These are consolidated appeals from the judgment and decrees of the Chief Court of Oudh on appeals from the judgment and decrees in two suits tried together by Nanavutty, J., sitting in the exercise of the Court's original jurisdiction. Both suits concerned the succession to the estate of Raja Shamsher Bahadur, a talukdar included in list 2 mentioned in S.8, Oudh Estates Act 1 of 1869. He died on 18th April 1883, leaving a will dated 26th March 1883, by which he bequeathed one half of his property to his senior wife, Mt. Aulia Begam and their only surviving child, Jani Begam, and the other half to his junior wife, Mt. Barkatunnissa Begam who was childless, Aulia Begam died in 1897 and Barkatunnissa Begam on 27th April 1927. In the first of these suits, 0. S. No. 5 of 1928, Abdul Latif Khan claimed that the will was invalid, and that as grandson of the Raja's eldest daughter Nawab Begam, who had predeceased him, he was entitled to succeed to the whole of the estate on d...
F.E. Dinshaw Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-22-1934
Lord Russell of Killowen: The point raised by this appeal is short and free from complication. The exact facts are in some respects a little difficult to ascertain, but for present purposes they may be accurately stated thus : The appellant is a member of a firm who acted as agents for a limited company, which carried on the business of a cotton mill. The appellant was assessed to income tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for the year 1929-30 on the basis of his income for the preceding year 1928-1929. In that preceding year the firm had, under guarantees given by them, been compelled to pay and had paid to the lenders large sums which had been advanced to the limited company, and which the limited company had failed to repay. As a result the limited company became immediately indebted to the firm in a large sum, the share of the appellant therein being the sum of Rs. 1,73,500. It was alleged by the appellant that this indebtedness was irrecoverable from the limited company, and...
P.K.P.S. Pichappa Chettiar and Others Vs. Chokalingam Pillai and Other ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-21-1934
Sir Lancelot Sanderson: This is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 9th September 1929 reversing the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad, at Madura, dated 18th January 1927. The question for determination in this appeal is whether the respondents and/or their deceased uncle Virappa Pillai were partners of the appellants in the business of money-lenders and bankers carried on at Colombo under the style of P.K.P.S., and if Virappa Pillai was a partner, whether his partnership was on his own account or as managing member of the Hindu joint family to which he and the respondents belonged. The suit was brought on 8th April 1924 by P.K.P.S. Pichappa Chettiar against (1) K.V.R. Virappa Pillai, (2) Chokalingam Pillai (3) Shanmukhan Pillai (a minor by his guardian ad litem Defendant 2), (4) P.K.P.S. Palaniyappa Chettiar (5) P.K.P.S. Raman Chettiar, and (6) P.K.P.S. Chidambaram Chettiar. Defendants (4), (5) and (6) as members of the firm...
Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-19-1934
Lord Tomlin: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna delivered on a question of law referred under S. 66 (2), Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa. The question referred was answered by the Court adversely to the appellant, the subject, and the appeal to His Majesty in Council followed. The point arises in this way. The late Maharajadhiraj died on 3rd July 1929. At the date of his death the Maharajadhiraj had been served with a notice under S. 22 (2), Income-tax Act, to furnish a return of his income in the prescribed form. At the date of his death the time for furnishing that return had not expired and no return had been made. The return required was for the year 1st April 1929 to 31st March 1930; but that return should have been based upon the income of the previous year, that is to say, in this particular case the income for the year commencing 1st October 1927 and ending 30th September 1928, that being the Fasl...
Collector of Gorakhpur Vs. Bam Sundar Mal and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-11-1934
Lord Blanesburgh: The main question for determination on this appeal is whether, on the death of Raja Kaushal Kishor Prasad Mal, which occurred on 7th January 1911, Indarjit Mal was entitled to succeed to the impartible Raj of Majhauli. On the death of Raja, mutation of names had by order dated 12th May 1911 been effected in favour of his senior widow without objection or opposition from Indarjit Mal, and the appellant was appointed by the Court of Wards to be Manager of the Majhauli estate. The respondents are a syndicate now formed to exploit the title of Indarjit Mal. He died on 13th August 1921, and they, on 30th October 1922, purchased from his son, Balbhadra Narain Mal, certain of the properties belonging to the Majhauli estate. The consideration was Rs. 24,000. The title of the vendor was clearly a doubtful one and the price had no relation to the value of the properties purchased. It was a sum suitable for the finance of the contemplated litigation, or for a sabstantial part of...
Jean Mackenzie Vs. Royal Bank of Canada
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-11-1934
Lord Atkin: This is an appeal from a judgment of the appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario, reversing a judgment of McEvoy, J., who at the trial had given judgment for Mrs. MacKenzie the plaintiff, the present appellant. The action was brought to recover certain shares in Borden Company, Inc., which by an amalgamation represented 187 shares in Ottawa Dairy Co., Ltd. These shares the plaintiff by a letter of hypothecation in November, 1921, had deposited with the defendant bank as security for advances made and to be made to the MacKenzie Manufacturing Co. Ltd., in which her husband was the principal share-holder. The transaction was attacked on the ground of undue influence of the husband and of misrepresentation. The facts appear to be that Mrs. MacKenzie, then a girl of 20, was married in 1901 to Mr. John Angus MacKenzie, who was then in business as a salesman. He appears to have been energetic and successful, and in 19l3 he formed a company, MacKenzie, Ltd., to carry on...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›