Privy Council Court March 1943 Judgments

Indian Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal

Court: Privy Council

LORD PORTER: The appellant is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act in the year 1918. It carried on the business of an ironfounder and steel maker at Hirapur in the Province of Bengal. By an agreement dated 8th September 1936, made between the appellant and a company named the Bengal Iron Company, Ltd., the former agreed to acquire and take over the whole of the property and assets of the latter as existing on the date of transfer. This second company was incorporated and registered in England and had carried on at Kulti in the same Province a business similar to that of the appellant. On 2nd December 1936, in pursuance of this agreement, and after it had been sanctioned by the High Court in England, the Bengal company transferred to the appellant the whole of its undertaking and assets, and from 3rd December (1) the appellant carried on the business previously carried on by that company as part of and in combination with its own existing business, and (2) the B...

Syed Mohammad Saadat Ali Khan Vs. Mirza Wiquar Ali Beg and Others

Court: Privy Council

LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh dated 9th September 1936, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bahraich, dated 31st July 1934, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It is necessary to set forth the history of the matter in some detail, in order to make plain the nature of the plaintiff's claim and the circumstances in which it arises. Raja Mohammad Siddique Khan (herein, after referred to as the testator) was the owner of the Nanpara Estate in Bahraich, Oudh. He made a will dated 8th January 1906, and died, sine prole, on 30th December 1907. There were many claimants to the estate, some relying on the will and others contesting it. The estate had since the month of February 1905, been under the management of the Court of Wards, and, in view of these rival claims, the Court of Wards instituted, on 28th April 1908, an interpleader suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, of Bahraich. The suit was at a l...

Mahomed Siddique Yousuf Vs. Official Assignee of Calcutta

Court: Privy Council

LORD ATKIN: This is a consolidated appeal from two orders of the High Court at Calcutta, one dismissing an appeal from the Judge in Insolvency and the other refusing to extend the time for appealing against an adjudication order made against one Ali Mohamed Hashim who will hereafter be called the insolvent. As a result of their Lordships' decision in this case the facts may have to be considered afresh in the Indian Courts, and it is desirable therefore to state the details as summarily as possible so far as they are relevant at the present time. In 1938 the insolvent had a claim for damages against a firm with whom he had dealings in shares, and by a written agreement of 30th March 1938, between the appellant and the insolvent the former agreed to advance money for the costs of the contemplated suit and to assist in the conduct of it, for which services he was to receive half the monies recovered after deducting the advances. On 1st April 1938, the suit was instituted and on 19th Janu...

Babui Rajeshwari Kuer and Another Vs. Babui Khukhna Kuer and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1943PC121

LORD CLAUSEN: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Patna of 27th October 1938, affirming with a modification a judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Chapra of 25th April 1938, whereby, in effect, he confirmed the attachment, in execution of a decree, of certain interests of the appellants under the will of Tirgunanand Upadhaya (hereinafter called the testator), who died in the year 1915. The substantial contention of the appellants is that their interests in the corpus so attached are contingent interests and therefore by reason of proviso (m) to S. 60 (1), Civil P. C., 1908, not liable to attachment. The question at issue turns upon the true construction of the somewhat inartistically drafted will of the testator. The testator made his will on 26th July 1915. He had one son only who had died some three years previously. At the date of his will and at the date of his death (which occurred shortly after the date of his will) his near living relatives were (a) his second...

Govind Prasad and Another Vs. Pawankumar

Court: Privy Council

SIR MADHAVAN NAIR: This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur dated 11th November 1938, confirming an order of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur, dated 20th August 1936. The appeal arises out of an execution proceeding, and the question for determination is whether the application made by the decree-holder for the execution of a decree which he had obtained against the appellants before the Board-the judgment-debtors-is barred by time. Both Courts in India have held that it is not barred. The material facts are as follows : One Madanlal Sao, the father of the respondent, obtained a decree against the appellants on 1st February 1932, in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur, for Rupees 32,185-5-3 with interest and costs. Before judgment, he had the immovable properties of the appellants attached under the Code of Civil Procedure. On 27th June 1932, which was within the period of three years prescribed by the Limitation Act, Ma...