Privy Council Court March 1940 Judgments

Gujarat Ginning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Appellants Vs. V. Govindan ...

Court: Privy Council

LORD PORTER: In this appeal the respondent, who was the plaintiff in the action, claims damages for wrongful dismissal. The trial Judge on 6th April 1936 passed a decree in favour of the appellants (defendants), but on 21st September 1936 this decree was reversed by the High Court sitting as a Court of Appeal. The respondent was employed by the appellants under a contract in writing dated 13th April 1931 in the following terms : Date, Bombay, the 13th April 1931, To Messrs. Jamnabhai Mansukbhai, Agents, The Gujarat Ginning and Mfg. Co., Ltd., Ahmedabad. Dear Sirs, This is to inform you that I have agreed to serve your company as the Dyeing, Bleaching and Finishing Master in full charge of the company's Bleaching, Dyeing and Finishing Department from the date of my joining the appointment and to be the sole head of the department and I shall work as such under your directions. 1. This agreement is for a period of three years and to be determined thereafter by either of us. 3. My salar...

Hansraj Gupta and Others Vs. Dehra Dun-mussoorie Electric Tramway Co., ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1940PC98

LORD THANKERTON: This appeal is from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated 1st September 1936, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge at Dehra Dun dated 4th February 1931 and granted a decree to the plaintiff-respondent for a sum of Rs. 13,100 with interest at 6 per cent. from 31st August 1923. The suit arises out of the misdeeds of Beltie Shah Gilani, who was the promoter and managing agent and managing director of the Dehra Dun-Mussoorie Electric Tramway, which was registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, on 23rd August 1921, and was ordered to be wound up by the High Court on 26th March 1926, N. P. Asthani and Bhagwati Shanker being appointed the Official Liquidators. On investigation, it was found that large sums of the Company's monies had been misappropriated by Beltie Shah. Certain contracts with the Company were made by Lala Raghumal, who carried on business as a contractor under the name of Madho Ram-Hardeo Dass at Calcutta and under th...

Societe Belge De Banque S.A. Vs. Rao Girdhari Lal Chaudhary

Court: Privy Council

LORD ATKIN: This is an appeal from the High Court at Lahore who reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge at Delhi in favour of the plaintiffs, the present appellants. The circumstances in which the plaintiffs' claim arose are as follows: The defendant was chairman of the Delhi Sugar Mills Ltd., an Indian company which carried on business at New Delhi. The company, before December 1933, had had dealings with a Belgian company, Messrs. Atelier de Construction de J. J. Gillains who may be called the contractors, who had been engaged in providing equipment for the company and held shares in the company. Apparently in December 1933, it was desirable for the company to obtain further financial assistance as they were contemplating making an addition to their factory, and for that purpose were acquiring a lease of a site which it was proposed should be mortgaged presumably to the contractors. Negotiations were opened between the defendant and the plaintiffs, a Belgian bank. The plaintiffs w...

Nand Kishwar Bux Roy Vs. Gopal Bux Rai and Others

Court: Privy Council

MR. JAYAKAR: This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 2nd March 1936, which reversed the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Palamau dated 17th March 1933, and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs respondents 1 to 7 for recovery of possession of an impartible estate called Deogan estate, in succession to the last holder Surendra Bux Rai (hereinafter called Surendra). The suit was instituted on 8th March 1924, by the plaintiff (respondent 1) claiming a declaration that the property in the suit, being an ancestral impartible estate of the joint family of Surendra and himself, devolved on him by survivorship, on the death of Surendra and that plaintiff 1 was alone the rightful owner thereof under the Mitakshara law and by virtue of the customs of primogeniture and female exclusion, which governed the estate. He also asked for possession. Plaintiffs 2 to 7 were subsequently brought on the record as assignees under a ...

Secretary of State Vs. Mask and Co.

Court: Privy Council

LORD THANKERTON: The sole question for determination in this appeal is as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain the suit. The appeal is taken from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 2nd February 1938, which set aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge at Cuddalore, dated 30th March 1937 (which had dismissed the respondents' suit on the ground of want of jurisdiction), and directed the Subordinate Judge to restore the suit to the file and to dispose of it on the merits. The respondents are a firm of merchants, haying their head office at Panruti in the Province of Madras, and, in the course of their business, they import betel-nuts from Java into British India. The facts in the present suit, which was filed by the respondents on 10th April 1934, are not materially in dispute. The suit relates to two consignments of betel-nuts, imported by the respondents in December 1932, from Java to Pondicherry by sea, and thereafter by rail to Panruti....

Sir Jamshedjee Jeejibhoy, Bart and Others Vs. Sorabji Byramji Warden a ...

Court: Privy Council

SIR GEORGE RANKIN: This is an appeal by the representatives of the original plaintiff in a suit to enforce a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. The suit was brought on the Original Side of the High Court of Bombay on 7th January 1936, by an old lady named Jaiji Hirjibhoy Parekh. Her daughter Meherbai had married one Byramji Hirjibhoy Warden, father of the defendants. Byramji had died on 26th October 1924, leaving a will whereby he had appointed the defendants, his four elder sons, to be his executors. Probate had been granted to them in 1925. By his will dated 6th October 1922 (codicil of 19th August 1924), Byramji declared (cl. 11) that his immovable properties were generally mortgaged and that it would take a long time before they could be sold at the best price after paying the mortgage debts. He accordingly authorized his executors to postpone the sale for any period not exceeding five years from the date of his death. He referred (cl. 12) to the fact that Bai Jaiji (the plaintiff...

Thomas Bear and Sons (India) Ltd. Vs. Prayag NaraIn and Another

Court: Privy Council

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: This appeal is against a decree of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 13th March 1935. That Court affirmed the decree of the Additional District Judge of Cawnpore in an action brought by the appellants to restrain infringement of trade mark rights and passing-off. At the hearing before their Lordships the respondents were not represented; but the case of the appellants was placed before the Board with equal ability and fairness by their counsel. The appellants are manufacturers and sellers of cigarettes and of tobacco described as "Virginia Bird's Eye" smoked in pipes. These goods are marketed in a European style. Both the said cigarettes and the tobacco have from a date long before 1922 been sold in India (by the appellants and their predecessors) in packets and in tins bearing a mark the distinguishing feature of which is the representation of an elephant and the packets and tins of cigarettes have also borne the designation "Elephan...

Raja Bhagwan Baksh Singh Vs. Secretary of State

Court: Privy Council

LORD PORTER: The appellant is the proprietor of the Amethi estate in the Sultanpur District of Oudh in the United Provinces of India. On 7th March 1930, he was declared by the Governor in Council of the United Provinces who claimed to be acting under the powers conferred upon him by the United Provinces Act, No. 4 of 1912 (commonly called the United Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1912) to be incapable of managing his own property. The appellant maintains that the declaration was ultra vires and on 19th March 1932, instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Allahabad claiming a declaration that the declaration above mentioned was wholly illegal and of no effect against the plaintiff. His suit was dismissed on 14th May 1934, and this dismissal was confirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 31st March 1937. From this decision the appellant has appealed to His Majesty in Council. The Governor's action was taken under Ss. 8 and 9, Court of Wards Act, which are ...