Privy Council Court June 1938 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Edgar Sammut and Another Vs. Strickland
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-30-1938
Lord Maugham: This is an appeal from a judgment of His Majesty's Court of Appeal of Malta delivered on 4th March 1938, reversing the judgment given on 11th October 1937, by the Civil Court of Malta, First Hall. The appeal raises the question of the validity of a customs duty imposed under an Ordinance made by the Governor of Malta, namely the Ordinance No. 27 of 1936. The respondent, who was the plaintiff in the action, raised the question by importing certain articles of the value of 3s. 9d. suitable for use in connexion with Coronation festivities. The appellant, Edgar Sammut, a Collector of Customs, exacted a duty on these articles in terms of the Ordinance 27 of 1936. This duty was paid under protest, and on 21st April 1937, the action was commenced. The trial Judge decided that the Ordinance was valid, but the decision of the Court of Appeal was to the contrary effect. Hence the present appeal. The nature of the dispute can be shortly stated. It was admitted by counsel for the res...
Bengal Coal Co. Ltd., Defendant Vs. Sri Sri Janardan Kishore Lal Singh ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-28-1938
Sir George Rankin: By a mining lease dated 4th March 1915, the plaintiffs demised to the Bengal Coal Co. Ltd. (defendants) therein called "the lessees," the mines, beds, veins and seams of coal in Mousa Poidih in the District of Burdwan for 30 years from 1st April 1915. The first of the lessees' covenants contained in part 7 of the schedule to the lease was in the following terms : The lessees shall pay the royalty and royalties reserved by this lease at the time and in the manner above appointed in that behalf and shall also pay and discharge all taxes, rates, assessments and impositions whatsoever being in the nature of public demands which shall from time to time be charged, assessed or imposed upon the said mines or any part thereof by the authority of the Government of India or the said Local Government or otherwise except demand for land revenue and shall also pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum on all arrears of such royalty or royalties from the due date thereof....
Elizabeth Arminella Burrows Sifton Vs. Clifford Sifton and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-24-1938
Lord Romer: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for the Province of Ontario which varied a judgment of Middleton J. given upon an application by way of originating motion brought by the respondents, Clifford Sifton and Wilfred Victor Sifton, the surviving trustees of the will of Clifford Winfield Burrows Sifton, deceased. By the motion the trustees sought the opinion, advice and direction of the Court on certain questions arising in the administration of that testator's estate. The testator died on 13th June 1928, leaving him surviving his widow, the respondent Mabel Cable Sifton, and his daughter and only child, the appellant, who was then of the age of 13 years. The will (dated 12th July 1926), after bequeathing the testator's furniture and effects to the appellant, continued as follows : I give, devise and bequeath all other property real and personal to my executors upon the following trusts namely- To manage the corpus of the estate in accordance with their be...
Nathu Ramu Mahajan and Others Vs. Gangabai
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-17-1938
Sir Shadi Lal: This appeal arises out of an action brought, by the respondent, Gangabai, for the recovery from her brother-in-law, Ramu Ganpat, of the possession of her husband's estate; and also for an account of the management of that estate. The husband, Dhanaji Dula Mahajan, died on 24th June 1907, leaving a will made by him on 21st June 1907. The Courts in India have concurred in holding that the will propounded in this case was duly made by the testator; and that he had, at that time, a disposing mind. It appears that after the death of her husband, Gangabai and Ramu Ganpat, took possession of the estate, but that the latter alone was in charge of its management. He however fell out with his sister-in-law, with the result, that she brought the present suit as stated above. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but against the decree dismissing her claim, Gangabai, preferred an appeal to the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal Ramu Ganpat died, leaving only minor children;...
Raja Shyam Sunder Singh and Others Vs. Kaluram Agarwala and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-17-1938
Lord Thankarton: Appellant 1 whose property has been sold in execution, and the other two appellants, who are receivers in charge of his properties, appeal in an application by them under O.21, R. 90, Civil P. C., to have the execution sale set aside, against the decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 27th November 1935, which confirmed the sale, setting aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad dated 18th September 1933, which had set the sale aside. Under Rule 90 it is necessary, in order to have the sale set aside to prove (a) material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale, and (b) that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud. Respondent 3 is the representative of his father, who obtained an ex parte decree dated 31st July 1931, in the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal against appellant 1 for the payment of Rs. 38,392-4-8, which was transferred to the Court of the Subordinat...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency and Aden, Chunilal B. Me ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-16-1938
Sir George Rankin: The High Court at Bombay has answered in favour of the respondent assessee two questions of law formulated and referred to the Court by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Bombay Presidency and Aden) under S. 66, Income tax Act, 1922. The assessee is resident in British India and the year of assessment is the year ending 31st March 1934. By order dated 13th December 1933, the Income-tax Officer assessed the respondent on a total income of Rs. 12,95,726, the total demand for income-tax and super-tax being Rs. 7,18,472. This order was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner on 19th January 1934. By these orders the assessee was held liable to pay tax upon profits derived by him from contracts made for the purchase and sale of commodities in various foreign markets - Liverpool, London, New York and elsewhere outside British India. The assessee disputes his liability in respect of such profits on the ground that they were not profits "accruing or arising in British India." I...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›