Privy Council Court May 1936 Judgments

George Frier Grahame Vs. Attorney-general, Fiji

Court: Privy Council

SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON: This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the Supreme Court of Fiji, made on 27th November 1934, by the Chief Justice of the said Court, whereby it was ordered that the appellant, George Frier Grahame should be suspended from practice as a barrister and solicitor of the said Court until 1st July 1936, such suspension to take effect from 8th December 1934, and that the appellant should pay the costs of the application and the costs of the Public Trustee incidental thereto. Prior to the date of the said order the appellant had practised as a barrister and solicitor in Fiji for seventeen years, and according to the judgment of the Chief Justice he had been held in respect by his fellow citizens and he had occupied the highest place among them. On 31st October 1934, an application was made by the Attorney-General at the relation of the trustees of the estate of the late Harry Granville Nicholas Carr (hereinafter called the Carr trustees) and of the Public ...

M.E. Moolla Sons, Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Official Assignee, Rangoon ...

Court: Privy Council

SIR GEORGE RANKIN: The controversy in this case is between the plaintiff company M. E. Moolla Sons, Limited, which was registered under the Indian Companies Act in 1921 and which was ordered to be wound up compulsorily on 21st June 1927 on the one side and the Official Assignee at Rangoon on the other side as assignee of the estate of one M. E. Moolla who was adjudicated insolvent on 7th May 1927. The subject-matter of the dispute is the right of interest which under a deed of settlement, dated 5th May 1908, made by his father, was taken by one Maung Chit Maung and conveyed by him to Moolla by registered deed dated 17th December 1919. The controversy arises out of the fact that on 22nd December 1920, by an unregistered instrument purporting to be articles of agreement made between Moolla, his mother Mariam Bee Bee, and Mahomed Ali Modan as trustee for the plaintiff company (not yet registered), Moolla agreed to sell to the company his business, the goodwill thereof, and the several pro...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal Vs. Hungerford Investment Trust, Lt ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1936PC219

SIR GEORGE RANKIN: This appeal is brought by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, from the decision of the High Court at Calcutta upon a reference made under S. 66 (2), Income-tax Act (11 of 1922). Two questions were originally referred to the High Court for its opinion, but the assessee made an admission which rendered the first question unnecessary. The sole question before the Court was as follows: The assessee's income in assessment having included dividends declared on 16th April 1931, and 3rd November 1931 by a company whose profits of 1930 and 1931 were found to include specified sums to which in accordance with S. 4 the Act did not apply; and the said company having been assessed in respect of profits to which the Act did apply, is such proportion of the dividends, as the specified sums bear to the aggregate of all profits in 1930 and 1931 respectively exempted from taxation to ordinary income-tax in accordance with S. 14 (2)? The question arises out of the assessment for th...

Tan Ah Boon Vs. State of Johore

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1936PC236

LORD ROCHE: This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the State of Johore which set aside a judgment of Savage Bailey, J., in favour of the appellant and ordered that judgment should be entered for the respondent State. The action of the appellant was for damages for breach of contract and was begun by plaint dated 6th June 1933. The circumstances out of which the action arose may be stated shortly as follows: For some years prior to 1917 the appellant had settled upon certain State land at Jeram Batu in Johore and began to clear and plant it. In 1917 and 1918 he made application that the land in question might be granted to him by the State and pending approval of his application continued to occupy the land. On 25th July 1922, the Collector of Land Revenue by letter of that date dealt with the application and signified approval of the alienation to the appellant of 110 acres of State land on the terms and conditions set out in the Land Enactment 1910 and Rules the...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal Vs. Mercantile Bank of India, Ltd. ...

Court: Privy Council

LORD THANKERTON: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, delivered on a reference of questions of law by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, under S. 66 (1), Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922). These questions of law arose in course of an assessment for supertax and surcharge made by the Income-tax Officer upon the respondents, as trustees of the late Sir David Yule, for the year ending 31st March 1932, in respect of Rs. 5,71,30,000, being the nominal amount of certain bonus debentures issued to them in respect of their shareholding in certain companies in the year ending 31st March 1931. The respondents appealed to the Assistant Commissioner, Calcutta, and, while the appeal was pending the Commissioner, of his own motion, made the present reference to the High Court, asking the following questions of law, viz : First Question.-The assesses being in his own name and through nominees the holder (a) of the whole of the share capital...

Jagannath Rao Vs. Rambharosa and Another

Court: Privy Council

LORD ROCHE: This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces, dated 15th December 1933, which affirmed a decree of the Additional District Judge, Raipur, dated 16th March 1927. The subject-matter of the suit is the estate of one Baboo Rao Dani, deceased. The plaintiffs in the suit were cousins of the deceased, being his paternal uncles' sons, and claimed his estate as reversioners on the death of his widow, Mt. Anandabai who died on 27th November 1924. The respondent Rambharosa, the defendant in the suit, in opposition to the plaintiffs' claim, relied upon an adoption by the widow of Baboo Rao Dani, in April 1920. The sole question for determination is whether this adoption was a valid adoption. The material facts and dates are as follows: Baboo Rao Dani was a Hindu resident of Raipur. He had no son. In 1911 he went to Delhi for the Durbar and before setting out he made a will which dealt, amongst other things, with the question of adoption. ...

Lala Kundan Lal and Another Vs. Mt. Musharrafi Begam and Others

Court: Privy Council

SIR GEORGE RANKIN: The plaintiffs appeal from a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh dated 27th April 1933, which set aside a preliminary mortgage decree granted to them by the Subordinate Judge of Kheri dated 7th September 1931. The suit was brought on 24th February 1931 to enforce the terms of a registered mortgage deed dated 8th September 1924. Defendant 1, Mt. Musharrafi Begam, was the only contesting defendant and will be referred to herein as the defendant. She was described in the plaint as being of about 40 years of age. The date of her marriage does not appear, but it appears that at the time of her marriage her husband Mohammad Abdul Bashir Khan agreed to pay her dower of Rs. 50,000. By deed dated 9th February 1920, executed at a time when the defendant's husband had incurred a certain number of debts, though it is not shown that he was then insolvent, he transferred to her five villages in lieu of the promised dower. The villages, even if allowance be made for encumbrances subs...

George Pardew Lovibond Vs. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., Canada and Others

Court: Privy Council

LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: These are two appeals by special leave. By his first appeal George Fardew Lovibond seeks to reverse an order (dated 28th June 1923) of the Court of Appeal of Ontario which dismissed his appeal from the judgment of Kerwin, J. pronounced on 24th February 1933, in an action in which he was the plaintiff. Before stating the terms of that judgment it will be convenient to outline the relevant facts leading up to the issue of the writ, as those facts are set out, or involved in the allegations contained, in the statement of claim. The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada (hereinafter referred to as the Grand Trunk) was incorporated in the year 1852 by special Act of the Legislature of the old Province of Canada. Its issued capital stock consisted (in addition to 12,500,000 4 per cent. Guaranteed Stock) of Preference and Common Stock (hereinafter referred to as the junior stocks) of an aggregate nominal value of 37,073,492. In addition there were issued and outstand...

inayat Khan Vs. Emperor

Court: Privy Council

LORD ROCHE: This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Court of the Judicial Committee, North-West Frontier Province, dated 19th June 1935, which confirmed a judgment of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Peshawar, finding the appellant guilty of murder and sentencing him to death. The ground upon which special leave to appeal was granted and upon which the argument upon this appeal was rested was that there was such a wrongful admission of evidence in the Courts below and such a consequent miscarriage of justice as to justify and require the interference of His Majesty. The principles upon which His Majesty will intervene in such matters and which will guide this Board in tendering advise to His Majesty in this regard have been frequently stated and are not in doubt. Their Lordships do not constitute a Court of Criminal Appeal. Their functions are thus defined in the judgment delivered by Lord Haldane in 44 IA 137 (1)at p. 140 : The general principle is established that t...

Nrisingha Charan Nandy Choudhry Vs. Rajniti Prasad Singh and Others

Court: Privy Council

SIR SHADI LAL: The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was instituted in the Court of the Settlement Officer of the Sonthal Parganas, to enforce two mortgages comprising landed property, the major portion of which was situated in Sonthal Parganas, and the remainder in the Gaya district. The plaintiffs, who were the mortgagees, submitted with their plaint an application to the Settlement Officer asking him to transfer the suit for trial to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Gaya; and this application was granted by him. When the case came on for hearing before the Subordinate Judge, the defendants challenged his jurisdiction to entertain the suit; but their objection was overruled, not only by the trial Judge, but also by the High Court at Patna to whom the case was taken on revision. Prom the judgment delivered by the High Court, this appeal has, by special leave, been brought by one of the defendants; and the question of jurisdiction has again been debated by the learned counsel...