Privy Council Court May 1939 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.
Mian Feroz Shah Vs. Mohammad Akbar Khan
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-23-1939
Sir George Rankin: This appeal is brought by the plaintiff from a decision (23rd May 1936) of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner for the North-West Frontier Province affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Peshawar dated 25th March 1935, whereby the appellant was awarded Rs. 8110. The appellant complains of this sum as inadequate; partly, but not solely, on the ground that a three-year period of limitation has been applied to his claim and not a six-year period under Art. 120 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act of 1908. On 12th March 1917 one Sohbat Khan, who was the owner of a considerable area of land in the village of Sheikhu in the Peshawar District, mortgaged 1011 kanals 8 marlas of his land to the appellant and his brother. The mortgage was for a term of 10 years and was a mortgage with possession, the sum secured being Rs. 44,233. Possession was not, in fact, taken by the mortgagees, but by a second document of even date the mortgaged land was leased by the mortgage...
Saadat Kamel Hanum Vs. Attorney-general, Palestine
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-23-1939
Sir George Rankin: In this case the appellant's suit has been dismissed as barred by limitation and the sole question is whether the dismissal is justified upon a true construction of the relevant provisions of the Mejelle. By a deed of wakf (wakfieh) dated 11th Muharram, 1228 A. H. (1812 A.D.), Emir Ali Pasha made wakf of a number of properties directing that the income should be applied in the first place to the upkeep of a certain mosque and fountain. As regards the balance of income, he directed that it should be paid or distributed to himself for his life and after his death to his three children, Abdulla, Miriam and Hanifeh, and their children. Then after them it shall be for their children, then to their grand-children and then to their great-grand-children, etc., etc., and so on, males and females according to the Sharia distribution, viz. the share of a male shall be twice as much as that of a female and for their descendants after them as long as they live and continually as ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal Vs. Himalaya Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-12-1939
Lord Romer: The respondent company is a life assurance company incorporated in British India, and the question to be determined in this appeal is how its profits ought to be ascertained for the purpose of assessment to income-tax for the year 1936-7 under the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the amending enactments. The determination of this question depends upon the proper construction of R. 25 of the rules made by the Board of Revenue under Sec. 59 of that Act; but before considering the language of that rule it will be convenient to set out Section 8 (1), Life Assurance Companies Act, 1912. The sub-section so far as material is in these terms: Every life assurance company shall once in every five year or at such shorter intervals as may be prescribed by the instrument constituting the company, or by its regulations or by-laws, cause an investigation to be made into its financial condition, including a valuation of its liabilities, by an actuary, and shall cause an abstract of the report of...
Keshardeo Chamria Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-09-1939
Lord Russell of Killowen: In this case the appellant appeals from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal on a reference to it by the respondent under S.66 (2), Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred was framed thus : Whether in the circumstances described above the present assessee and Rai Bahadur Ramprotap Chamria were the managers of the properties appointed by or under any order of a Court within the meaning of S.41, Income-tax Act, and whether in the facts and circumstances given above the Income-tax Officer acted illegally in assessing the present assessee in respect of his share of the property. The relevant facts and circumstances, which appear in the statement of case, must be stated. In the year 1929 the appellant instituted a suit in the High Court at Calcutta (No. 183 of 1929) against one Ramprotap, and a minor grandson of Ramprotap, alleging that he was the adopted son of Ramprotap's deceased brother Amloke Chand. By way of relief he claim...
thelwall Thomas Maurice Vs. Goldsbrough Mort and Co. Ltd.
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-05-1939
Lord Wright: The question in this appeal is what are the rights of the appellant as wool grower and the respondents as wool brokers in respect of moneys collected by the brokers under insurance policies effected by them on the appellant's wool, which the respondents held in their store at the time when it was destroyed by fire. The respondents as brokers claim to make certain deductions partly for expenses incurred and services rendered before the fire, and partly for prospective profits, such as commission on sale, lost by them in consequence of the fire and for charges or expenses which but for the fire would have been earned or expended and would have been deductible from the proceeds if the wool had been sold in the normal course, instead of being destroyed. The facts are set out in a special case to which are appended certain questions for the opinion of the Court. The Supreme Court of New South Wales answered these questions in the appellant's favour. That decision was reversed b...
Monghibai Vs. Cooverji Umersey
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-02-1939
Lord Porter: This case raises a short point for the decision of the Board. It is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court at Bombay in its appellate jurisdiction dated 16th March 1937. By its judgment the Appeal Court affirmed a decree of the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction dated 30th July 1936. Up to and after the year 1925 a firm of Cooverji Umersey and Co. were carrying on business in partnership in Bombay. In 1925 it consisted of nine partners, Cooverji Umersey, the respondent, his father Umersey Katchra, and seven others who were defendants 4 to 10 below. On 30th September 1925, one Mawji Waghji and his wife, the appellant, borrowed Rs. 1,20,000 from the firm and gave a promissory note for that sum in favour of the firm. The advance was secured by certain bales of cotton and at the same time the title deeds of two houses belonging to the appellant and to her husband and situated at King Lane and Borah Bazar Street were deposited with the firm...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›