Privy Council Court June 1935 Judgments

Krishnayya Rao and Another Vs. Venkata Kumara Mahipathi Surya Rao

Court: Privy Council

Sir George Lowndes: This appeal was before the Board in June 1933, when a preliminary point was considered as to the admissibility of certain evidence which had been rejected by the Indian Courts. As the result of that hearing an order of His Majesty in Council was promulgated by which the evidence in question was declared to be admissible, and the case was remanded to the High Court for fresh findings upon certain of the issues to which the evidence related. It now comes back to the Board, with the findings of the High Court, for final disposal of the appeal. The relevant facts are set out at length in the judgment delivered by Lord Russell of Killowen on 30th June 1933 : 60 IA 336 (1), and it is only necessary now to summarise them very briefly. The suit out of which the appeal arises was brought by the respondent praying for a declaration that the adoption of the first appellant by the first defendant, since deceased, and now represented by the second appellant was invalid. The adop...

Bharat Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. Manilal Lallubhai and Another

Court: Privy Council

Sir Lancelot Sanderson: This is an appeal by the Bharat Spinning and Weaving Company Limited (hereinafter called the Company) against a final order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its appellate jurisdiction dated 24th March 1933, which reversed an order made by a Judge of that Court in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction dated 8th September 1932. In the Courts in India two of the points relied upon by the respondents to this appeal were, viz.; (1) whether an award under the Indian Arbitration Act (9 of 1899) against a firm in the name of the firm is valid ; and (2) whether it is competent for the High Court under the provisions of O. 21, R. 50 (2), Civil PC, to determine whether persons who dispute that they are partners in a firm against which an award has been made in the name of the firm are so liable. Both the Courts in India decided these questions against the respondents and their counsel has not relied upon either of the two points in this appea...

Homeshwar Singh and Others Vs. (Maharajadhiraj) Kameshwar Singh Bahadu ...

Court: Privy Council

Sir John Wallis: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Patna affirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga and giving the plaintiff, the Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga, a mortgage decree against the five defendants: (1) Babus Homeshwar Singh, (2) Kuleshwar Singh (3), Chiteshwar Singh and (4) and (5) Padmanandji Singh and Taranandji Singh, the minor sons of Kuleshwar Singh, on a mortgage executed by defendants 1 to 3 in the plaintiff's favour on 20th February 1923 for Rs. 5,40,506. The consideration for the mortgage was Rs. 2,29,214-10-4 owing to the plaintiff as shown in Sch. 3; Rs. 2,21,129-10-9 to be paid by the plaintiff to set aside a Court sale of the defendants' properties which were the subject of a babuani maintenance grant made by the plaintiff's grandfather to the grandfather of defendants 1 to 3, and were stated to be worth 40 lakhs of rupees; and the balance of Rs. 90,000 odd as shown in Sch. 4 to be paid by the plaintiff i...

Walter Smith and Another Vs. Ahmed Abdeenbhoy Peerbhoy

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1935PC154

Lord Atkin: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay who reversed a decision of Kemp, J. in favour of the plaintiffs, the appellants, at a trial on the original side. The claim was for a balance of account. The plaintiffs, under the firm name of Clarke and Smith, carried on business in the city of London as produce merchants, doing amongst other activities a consignment business. The defendant carries on business in Bombay as a dealer in hides and skins and other produce, doing also a commission business. The parties came into business relations during the war in 1916 on an introduction of the defendant to the plaintiffs by Bombay correspondents of theirs. No formal agreement was drawn up between the parties: and the terms of business are to be derived from the letters and accounts passing in course of business. The defendant consigned goods to the plaintiffs, and the general terms are expressed in the plaintiffs' first letter to the defendant of 29th June 1916. Ou...

Robert Lyon Moore and Others Vs. Attorney-general for Irish Free State ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Chancellor: This is a petition to have it declared that an amendment to the Constitution of the Irish Free State, viz., Constitution (Amendment No. 22) Act, 1933, is no bar to the maintenance by the petitioners, who are the appellants, of their appeal before this Board. The petitioners claim to be owners of a fishery in the tidal waters of the River Erne in Ireland. They had brought an action in the Irish Courts to enforce their claim and had succeeded before the trial Judge. On appeal to the Supreme Court that judgment was reversed on 31st July 1933 by a majority. The petitioners then presented to the Privy Council their petition for special leave to appeal, the grant of which leave was, on 9th October 1933, advised by this Board, and on 10th November 1933, an order granting such leave was made by the King in Council. But on 15th November 1933, an Act was passed by the Oireachtas of Saorstat Eireann, the Parliament of the Irish Free State, hereinafter called the Oireachtas, provi...

British Coal Corporation and Others Vs. the King Opposite Party

Court: Privy Council

Lord Chancellor (Viscount Sankey): This is a petition for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of King's Bench (Appeal Side) of the Province of Quebec, delivered on 5th October 1934. The petitioners had been convicted on 12th December 1933, under S. 498, Canadian Criminal Code and under Ss. 2 and 32, Combines Investigation Act, 1923, before the Court of King's Bench (Crown Side) and had been subjected to fines totalling $30,000, but the more serious effect to the petitioners of the conviction was that their business operations in the import of British anthracite coal were held to be illegal. The conviction was upheld by the judgment of the Appeal Court. Before their Lordships proceeded to consider questions appertaining to the merits of the petition, they decided in the first instance to determine a preliminary objection, which was that the petition was incompetent by reason of the provisions of S. 17 of the Canadian Statute, 23 and 24 Geo. V., C. 53 (an Act to amend th...

Kedar Nath Goenka Vs. Munshi Ram NaraIn Lal and Others

Court: Privy Council

Sir John Wallis: In this case the right of a judgment-creditor to bring the properties of a mutt to sale in execution of a money decree against the Mahanth of the mutt has for more than a quarter of a century been the subject of incessant litigation and a multiplicity of suits in the Courts below, and now comes before this Board for the first time. In 1898 the Mahanth of the Suja Mutt died and was succeeded by Siaram Das, the judgment-debtor in this case. A few months later, in January 1899, the Mahanth of the neighbouring Sersia Mutt, as next friend of his nephew, Mahabir Das, who is said to have been six years old, instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr against Siaram Das to establish the minor's right to succeed to the office of Mahanth of the Suja Mutt, and according to his own statement spent a sum far in excess of Rs. 31,000 in prosecuting the suit. One of his first steps after instituting the suit was to apply for the appointment of a receiver who on ...