Privy Council Court January 1937 Judgments

Hubert Rowan Hodge Vs. Shahebzada Mahomed Kamgar Shah and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1937PC107

LORD THANKERTON: Counsel for the appellant in this case submits two questions for consideration by their Lordships. The first question raises a point as to the competency of the appeal taken to the High Court from the order of Cunliffe, J. Prima facie there is good reason for that point, because, the period of limitation provided by Art. 151 being 20 days for appealing against the order, a period of 124 days in fact elapsed before the appeal was taken. The contesting respondent's reply in excuse of his action was to say that, as provided by the terms of S. 12, sub.s. (2), Lim. Act, a portion of the 124 days, the deduction of which would leave less than 20 days, was accounted for by the period which elapsed before he could obtain a copy of the order against which he was going to appeal. The learned Judges of the High Court have held that the respondent has succeeded upon that, and they have so held on a detailed examination of what occurred during that period. Their Lordships agree with...

Attorney-general of Ontario Vs. Attorney-general of Canada and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1937PC99

LORD ATKIN: This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court on a reference by the Governor-General in Council dated 5th November 1935, asking whether the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act was ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada. The unanimous answer of the Supreme Court which was expressed to be directed only to those sections of the Act upon which they had the benefit of argument was that Ss. 14, 18 and 19 were ultra vires, that Ss. 16 and 17 were not ultra vires, and that Ss. 20, 21 and 22, so far as they were applicable to such of the enactments or to offences created by such of the enactments enumerated in S. 2 (h) as might be intra vires, were not ultra vires. The Board were invited in argument to deal with Ss. 23 to 26 inclusive which are not referred to in the judgment of the Supreme Court presumably because no argument upon them was addressed to the Court. Except on one point, viz. as to validity of Ss. 18 and 19, their Lordships agree with ...

Nutbehari Das Vs. Nanilal Das and Others

Court: Privy Council

SIR GEORGE RANKIN: This appeal arises out of a partition suit between members of a Bengali family governed by the Dayabhaga. The contest is between uncle and nephews ; that is between the appellant Nutbehari, who was defendant 1 in the suit, and the three respondents, sons of his deceased brother Haridas, viz., Nanilal (the plaintiff), Manmatha (defendant 2) and Nagendra Nath (defendant 3). These three brothers make common cause against Nutbehari. As McNair, J. has noticed : The real protagonists are Nutbehari and his nephew Manmatha Nath, who are admittedly contractors in a large way of business. Manmatha, although he is not the plaintiff, admits that he is financing the suit. The trial Judge (Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, 24 Perganas) dismissed the suit save as regards a small plot of land measuring about 3 bighas and 4 cottas, upon which the family had been living: this land, but not the house built thereon, he treated as joint property of the parties, though he refused to divide it...

Attorney-general of British Columbia V. Attorney-general of Canada and ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1937PC91

LORD ATKIN: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada delivered on 17th June 1936, on a reference by the Governor-General in Council dated 5th November 1935, raising the question whether S. 498-A of the Criminal Code is ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada. The Supreme Court unanimously held that sub-ss. (b) and (c) were not ultra vires, and by a majority, the Chief Justice, Rinfret, Davis and Kerwin, JJ., Cannon and Crocket, JJ. dissenting, held that sub-s. (a) also was not ultra vires. The S. 498-A was introduced into the Criminal Code by S. 9 of 25 and 26 Geo. V., C. 56, the title of which is an Act to amend the Criminal Code: Section 9. The said Act is further amended by inserting after section four hundred and ninety-eight the following section: 498-A. Every person engaged in trade or commerce or industry is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding one thousand dollars or to one month's imprisonment, or, if a corporation, to a...

Attorney-general of British Columbia Vs. Attorney-general of Canada an ...

Court: Privy Council

LORD ATKIN: This is an appeal from the Supreme Court on a reference by the Governor-General in Council dated 5th November 1935, raising the question whether the Natural Products Marketing Act 1934, as amended by the Natural Products Marketing Act Amendment Act 1935, is ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada. The Supreme Court unanimously answered the question in the affirmative. The Act consists of two parts. The first provides for the establishment of a Dominion Marketing Board whose powers include powers to regulate the time and place at which and the agency through which natural products to which an approved scheme relates shall be marketed and to determine the manner of distribution and the quantity, quality, grade or class of the product that shall be marketed by any person at any time and to prohibit the marketing of any of the regulated products of any grade, quality or class. There are other regulatory powers which need not be further specified. A scheme to regulate the market...

A.V. Palanivelu Mudaliar Vs. Neelavathi Ammal and Another

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1937PC50

SIR SHADI LAL: On 26th January 1925, three sisters, who were the defendants in the action which has led to this appeal, executed in favour of the plaintiff a promissory note for Rs. 15,000. They agreed to pay him this sum, for the services rendered by him in the management of their joint estate, with interest at the rate of 1 per cent. per mensem from the date of the note until the date of payment. No payment was however made to him with the result that he commenced in January 1928 the present action to recover Rupees 20,000, the principal and interest due on the document ; and in the alternative he claimed that amount as remuneration for his services from March 1920, to January 1928. Defendant 1, who was married to the plaintiff, did not contest the suit; but her two younger sisters denied the due execution of the promissory note by them, and raised other pleas to defeat the claim. On the issues, which arose on the pleadings, the trial Judge pronounced his judgment in favour of the pl...

The Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the City of Auckland and Others ...

Court: Privy Council

LORD WRIGHT: The question to be determined in this appeal is what are the rights of the Alliance Assurance Company, Ltd., the respondents, under a debenture bond for 100 and the coupons still outstanding under it of which they are bearers. The bond and coupons were issued by the Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the City of Auckland in New Zealand, the defendants in the action and the appellants before this Board. The Auckland Transport Board who were third parties in the action are also appellants, but no question arises in this appeal as to their position. The debenture bond is numbered 1744 and is for 100. It was issued under the common seal of the appellant corporation on 9th February 1920. It is headed: Auckland City Council, Auckland, New Zealand. Auckland City Tramway Loan of 1,250,000. Secured on the revenues of the City of Auckland, subject to the existing loans chargeable on such revenues, and is payable at the holder's option either in Auckland, New Zealand, or in London on...

Sarat Chandra Basu Vs. Bijoy Chand Mahatab Maharajadhiraj Bahadur of B ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1937PC46

SIR SHADI LAL: This consolidated appeal raises the question of the validity of the execution and the registration of a kabuliyat, under which the appellant, Sarat Chandra Basu, with other persons, obtained a lease of the coal mines in certain villages belonging to the respondent, the Maharaja of Burdwan. The suits, which have led to the appeal, were originally instituted by the lessor against the appellant and his co-lessees, but they were subsequently withdrawn as against the co-lessees, and proceeded to trial as against the appellant only. The claim was resisted by him on various pleas, mainly of a technical character ; but he was defeated in both the Courts in India. He has now appealed to His Majesty in Council, and their Lordships have, after examining the arguments presented on behalf of the parties, reached the conclusion that there is no valid ground for dissenting from the view taken by the Courts below. The kubuliyat, upon which the claim was founded was executed on 30th Augu...