Privy Council Court January 1936 Judgments

D. Davis and Co., Ltd. Vs. Brunswick (Australia), Ltd. and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Maugham: This is an appeal from an order dated 9th September 1932, of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales allowing by a majority (Long Innes and Davidson, JJ. Halse Rogers, J., dissenting) an appeal by the present respondents from an order dated 9th October 1931, of the Chief Judge in Equity of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Harvey, J.), for the compulsory winding up of the respondents, Brunswick (Australia), Limited, hereinafter called "the Company." The apparently simple question which arises is whether the Company ought or ought not to be wound up compulsorily on the ground that that course is just and equitable within the meaning of S. 84(e), New South Wales Companies Act, 1899 (No. 565 of 1931), or, more accurately, whether such an order was properly made on the petition to be next mentioned. As will be seen the date of the commencement of the winding up (if any) is of primary importance in this case. The proceedings were begun by a petition presente...

Gabriel Togonu Bickersteth and Another Vs. Evan Adeleye Shanu

Court: Privy Council

Lord Maugham: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in an action in which the appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff. One of the appellants is now dead and the appeal has been prosecuted by the surviving defendant. The action was brought by the respondent as devisee of certain properties for an account of the rents collected by the appellants in respect of these properties from the death of the testator until the date when the respondent attained the age of 25 years. The question for the determination of this Board is whether the devise to the respondent by the testator's will vested at the death of the testator subject to being divested if the respondent did not attain 25 or was contingent on the respondent attaining the age of 25. The full Court, following the judgment of the learned Judge in the Supreme Court of Nigeria, has decided in favour of the former view, and it is not in dispute that if that decision ...

Sarda Mahesh Prasad Singh Vs. Badri Lal Sahu and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1936PC108

Sir John Wallis: This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Board of Revenue for the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh confirming the appellate judgment and decree of the Court of the Commissioner of the Benares Division, which had decreed the plaintiffs' suit reversing the judgment of the Court of the Collector of Mirzapur which had dismissed the suit. The Robertsgang tahsil of the Mirzapur District in which the property is situated is a scheduled district under the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874, and under the rules for the administration of civil justice made pursuant to that Act, the Court of Collector has power to try and determine suits of every description and is to be considered as the District and principal Court of original jurisdiction, and the Court of the Commissioner of Benares as the highest Court of appeal. It is however provided by R.9, as follows : It shall be in the power of the Local Government to refer to the Board of Revenue a...

Hem Singh and Others Vs. Basant Das and Another

Court: Privy Council

SIR GEORGE RANKIN: These three appeals concern a religious institution in Manak in the Lahore district, and the buildings, lands and other property belonging thereto. The first appeal No. 10, is brought by the plaintiffs in a suit under S. 92, Civil PC, to remove the defendant Basant Das from the office of mahant or custodian of the institution upon the grounds of misconduct and mismanagement. The learned Subordinate Judge found for the plaintiffs and made an order removing Basant Das and appointing another custodian. The High Court at Lahore set aside this decree and dismissed the suit. No question or difficulty arises as to the competence of this appeal, but the defendant, Basant Das, having died since the High Court's decree, the appeal has not been pressed. Appeals Nos. 108 and 109 are brought from two decrees of the High Court reversing the decision of a tribunal appointed under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, (Punjab Act 8 of 1925). The tribunal had inquired under S. 16 of the Act ...

Nazir Ahmad Vs. Emperor

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1936PC253(1)

LORD BLANESBURGH: Their Lordships desire to re-affirm in this case the very exceptional circumstances in which alone they will humbly advise His Majesty to grant leave to appeal in a criminal case. They would not have it supposed that the advice which they propose to tender to His Majesty in this case indicates any weakening on their part of the most salutary judicial rule which prevents this Board from entertaining such applications, the Board not being a Court of Criminal Appeal, except in the most exceptional circumstances. What actuates the Board in advising His Majesty to grant leave to appeal in thus instance is that it appears that with reference to a section of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is of vital importance to accused persons, there has been a difference of opinion in the High Courts of India which, however it be resolved, ought to be resolved so that in the future there will be no doubt as to the law declared by that section. It is not a case of a view being taken b...

(Sri Raja) Inuganti Venkatarama Rao Vs. (Sri Raja) Sobhanadri Appa Rao ...

Court: Privy Council

Sir George Lowndes: The issue between the parties to this appeal is as to the validity of a conveyance, made to the father of respondents 1 and 2, of a quarter share in the village of Somavaram, in the Kistna District, of which the appellant seeks to recover possession with mesne profits. The property in dispute had been the subject of a gift (the validity of which is not disputed) in July 1900, by the late Maharaja of Venkatagiri, to the appellant who was then a minor. It was sold by the appellant's father, purporting to act as his guardian, to the father of the respondents on 14th October 1910, and upon a partition after his death came to respondent 1, who alone appears before the Board to contest the appellant's claim. It is common ground between the parties that if the conveyance was effective the appellant's suit must fail; for if it were necessary for him to ask that the conveyance should be set aside as not binding on him, his suit was out of time; if, on the other hand, it coul...