Privy Council Court October 1938 Judgments

S.N. Bannerjee and Another Vs. Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co. Ltd. and Oth ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Porter: These are consolidated appeals from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated 9th October 1936, made on the petition of the Kuchwar Lime and Stone Company (in liquidation), whereby it was ordered that (1) the Secretary of State for India in Council, (2) S. N. Ghose and (3) S. N. Bannerjee had been guilty of contempt and that the Secretary of State should forthwith pay to the petitioners one half of their costs and that the other respondents should also pay to the petitioners one-half of their costs and should be jointly and severally liable therefor. Of these persons S.N. Ghose is the managing director of a Company called the Kalyanpore Lime Works, Ltd. and S.N. Bannerjee then manager of that Company. The reason for the petition is to be found in the previous acts and relationship of the parties. On 1st April 1928, the Secretary of State granted to the petitioners two leases: one of the mineral rights in Lower Murli Hill and the other of the surface and mine...

Chaudhri Mahbub Singh and Others Vs. Haji Abdul Aziz Khan

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1939PC8

Lord Porter: The plaintiffs in this suit, who are also appellants, are the nearest reversioners of their uncle, one Chaudri Mangal Singh, who died on 29th October 1928. It is common ground that they are entitled to inherit his estate if on his death he was a Hindu and not, a Mahomedan : if, however, he died a Mahomedan, whoever may be entitled to his estate, the appellants have no claim to the inheritance. The appellants contend that the deceased man, who was a Hindu by birth, had never been converted to Mahomedanism, whereas the respondents maintain that he was not only a Mahomedan at his death but that he had become a Mahomedan some 30 years earlier and remained of that faith. Mangal Singh died in the house of the respondent and it was said that 22 years earlier he had made an oral waqf or charitable disposition of his property substantially in the terms afterwards embodied in a formal document dated 25th October 1928, and had appointed himself mutawalli or trustee thereof. After the...

Firm Gokal Chand Jagan Nath Vs. Firm Nand Ram Das-atma Ram

Court: Privy Council

Lord Wright: The appellants are a firm of merchants carrying on business at Sialkot. The respondents are a firm of commission agents in Calcutta, who, from between 1919 and 1922, were employed by the appellants to conduct transactions for the purchase and sale of sugar and the purchase of gunny bags. The question in this appeal relates to three transactions executed by the respondents on behalf of the appellants in accordance with this course of business. These transactions were duly closed by the respondents with the other parties, and in the result three sums of money were respectively due on the balance of the transactions: from Diwan Chand-Amar Chand Rs.1275, from Chatter Bhuj Dossa Rs. 8670, from Kalu Ram Kanhaya Lal Rs. 510. This was the position when the transactions were closed in October 1920. But the three parties were in financial difficulties and in the result the respondents succeeded in obtaining payment of a part only of this indebtedness. This action was brought to reco...

Mohammad Ismail and Others Vs. Hanuman Parshad and Another

Court: Privy Council

Sir George Lowndes: For the purpose of this judgment the facts may be stated quite shortly. In the main they are not in dispute. One Mahomad Sadiq, the father of the appellants, was (prior to the transactions hereinafter referred to) the owner of various immovable properties in Delhi. On 27th February 1922, he mortgaged a two-thirds share in a number of small buildings in the city to Chuni Lal, the father of the respondent, for Rs. 25,000. No payments having been made by the mortgagor Chuni Lal on 5th March 1926 served a notice on him demanding payment of the mortgage debt within 10 days. No reply appears to have been made to this demand, but the mortgagor thereupon proceeded to make dispositions of practically the whole of his other properties. On 23rd March he executed a deed of sale in favour of a relation of his wife for a nominal consideration of Rs. 1500. On 29th April following he executed : (1) a deed of gift of another house valued at Rs. 15,000 in favour of his wife's sister,...

Smt. Premila Devi and Others Peoples Bank of Northern India Ltd. (In L ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Romer: These are three consolidated appeals from the order of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated 10th March 1936, made upon an application by the Official Liquidator of the respondents, the Peoples Bank of Northern India, Limited. The question to be determined is whether the appellants should be placed upon the list of contributories notwithstanding the fact that in the year 1933 the directors of the bank purported to forfeit the appellants' shares, and removed the appellants' names from the register of members in respect thereof. The bank was incorporated in the year 1925 under the Indian Companies Act with a capital of 50 lacs of rupees divided into 50,000 shares of Rs. 100 each. These shares, all of which were issued, were called "A" shares. In the year 1926, the capital was increased by another 50,000 shares of Rs. 100 each, of which 25,000, called "B" shares, were then issued. In 1929 some of the remaining 25,000 shares were issued and were called "C" shares, but wi...

Kumar Kamalaranjan Roy Vs. Secretary of State

Court: Privy Council

Lord Wright: The appellant in these consolidated appeals is the purchaser of a zamindari estate sold under the provisions of Act 11 of 1859 for the recovery of arrears of land revenue. The question is whether he is liable, after he annulled, as he was entitled to do under Sec. 37 of Act 11 of 1859, the under-tenures, for the unpaid balance of the costs of the preparation of a Record of Rights of the estate, which had been duly apportioned on the patnidars of the estate before the purchase by the appellant of the estate and the annulment of the under-tenures. The appellant was plaintiff in the action; he had paid under protest the amount demanded from him by the Government and was claiming repayment. The facts are short and not in dispute. The estate in question is in the District of Murshidabad. In 1923 settlement operations were commenced and these were completed in November 1928. Thereupon the provisions of Sec. 114, Ben. Ten. Act, 1885, came into effect. These provisions, so far as ...

Lala Nand Kishore Vs. Azmat Ulla, Official Receiver, Delhi and Another

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1938PC277

Lord Romer: This, is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated 16th November 1933, setting aside a decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge at Delhi dated 5th August 1929, in an action in which one Lala Shibba Mal (since deceased and now represented by the appellant) was plaintiff and respondent 2; Rai Sahib Rup Narain was originally the sole defendant. The defendant having become insolvent, respondent 1, the Official Receiver, Delhi, was added as a party to the suit. The short question to be determined is whether a sum of Rupees 1,66,570, that admittedly became due from respondent 2 to Lal Shibba Mal, constitutes, as was held by the Subordinate Judge, a charge upon the interest of that respondent in certain land at Delhi hereinafter referred to or whether, as was held by the High Court, the sum is merely an unsecured debt. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows : On 24th November 1921, the said Rup Narain, therein called the first party, and the...