Privy Council Court June 1943 Judgments

Debi Prasad Sharma and Others Vs. Emperor

Court: Privy Council

LORD ATKIN: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by which the appellants were severally found guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced to fine or imprisonment and in the case of appellant 3 to imprisonment only. The first two appellants are respectively the printer and publisher and the editor of the Hindustan Times a daily news paper published in Delhi and having a large circulation in the United Provinces. Appellant 3 is the local correspondent of the newspaper at Meerut and at the material date had been so employed for the past 7 years. In July 1941, the Sessions Judge at Meerut Mr. Hari Shankar Vidyarthi had been engaged in the trial of 20 persons charged with murder, rioting, etc., which ended on 3lst July 1941, when the Judge convicted four of the accused and sentenced them to transportation for life. The remaining sixteen were acquitted. On 1st August appellant 3 Mr. Singhal sent the following news item to the newspaper : (F.O.C.) Meeru...

Kunwar Rohani Ramandhwaj Prasad Singh Vs. Thakur Har Prasad Singh and ...

Court: Privy Council

SIR GEORGE RANKIN: The appellant is the proprietor of an estate called the Beswan estate at Aligarh. In 1923 respondent 3 Mahabir Singh, herein called "the plaintiff" brought a suit in forma pauperis claiming the estate and seeking to eject the appellant's elder brother who was then in possession. The elder brother died while the suit was pending and the appellant who was a minor at the time was substituted in his stead as the defendant and the Court of Wards acted on his behalf. The trial Court gave decree for the plaintiff on 2nd June 1925, but on 12th February 1929, the High Court at Allahabad reversed this decision and dismissed the suit. Their decree was confirmed upon appeal to His Majesty in Council. On 16th February 1926, while the case was pending before it the High Court ordered that the plaintiff should be put in possession of the estate in execution of the trial Court's decree on his depositing in the trial Court security in the sum of Rs. 42,000. On 1st April 1926, one Jiw...

Thakur Shah Vs. Emperor

Court: Privy Council

LORD PORTER: This is an appeal against a conviction for abetment of forgery under S. 466 combined with S. 109, Penal Code. The appellant was charged with abetting one Jagannath Singh and one Matuk Chandra Das in forging a certain decree sheet and compromise petition, which are court records and was found guilty by the Sessions Judge of the Santal Parganas. This conviction was upheld by the High Court at Patna. The history of the case has been fully and accurately stated in the judgment of Chatterji J. in the High Court and need not be repeated at length here. It is only necessary to set out sufficient facts to make this judgment comprehensible. In 1934, the appellant, one Buchai, and his son Khudi were parties to a suit for the partition of their joint family property, a suit which was eventually compromised. In order to effect their purpose the parties on 13th December 1935, filed a compromise petition in accordance with which a decree of the Court was drawn up and signed on the 23rd ...

Hanna Eissa Kawas Vs. Bishara Elias Kawas and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1944PC5

Lord Macmillan: This is an appeal by the defendant in an action against him by the widow and two sons of his deceased brother in which they claim from the defendant an account of the transactions of a business carried on in Honduras by the defendant in partnership with the deceased and another brother, whose share was acquired by the defendant. Payment is also claimed of the deceased's share in the partnership assets as the same may be ascertained from the accounts. The case was contested by the defendant on various grounds but the only defence with which their Lordships are concerned is founded on an agreement dated 10th March 1925, made between the appellant on the first part and one Shaheen and the deceased's widow of the second part, in which the second parties are described as the legal guardians of the deceased's two sons then in minority "by virtue of a legal certificate of guardianship emanating from the Ecclesiastical Orthodox Court of Jerusalem." By this document it was agree...

Mt. Besar Kuer Vs. Bishundeo Singh and Others

Court: Privy Council

SIR MADHAVAN NAIR: This is an appeal in forma pauperis by special leave from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated 22nd December 1939, which affirmed a decree of the District Judge at Patna dated 14th April 1938, which affirmed a decree of the First Munsif at Patna, dated 18th March 1937, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The first of the two plaintiffs who instituted the suit having since died, plaintiff 2 is now the sole appellant before the board ; the defendants are the respondents. The only question for decision in the appeal is one of law, viz., whether the word "sister" in S. 2, Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act (2 of 1929) includes a half-sister by the same father. Section 2 of the Act is as follows : A son's daughter, daughter's daughter, sister, and sister's son shall in the order so specified, be entitled to rank in the order of succession next after a father's father and before a father's brother : Provided that a sister's son shall not include a...

Otto George Gfeller Vs. the King

Court: Privy Council

SIR GEORGE RANKIN: The appellant, Otto George Gfeller, is a Swiss national. At Lagos, in July 1941 he was tried by the Supreme Court of Nigeria on a charge framed under S.427, Criminal Code of Nigeria, that he did on 20th February 1941 receive 156 bottles of Gordon's gin, knowing the same to have been stolen. He was convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment with hard labour. On appeal to the West African Court of Appeal his conviction was upheld but his sentence was reduced to 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour. From this decision, dated 6th November 1941 he appeals to His Majesty in Council by special leave. Their Lordships are informed that he has undergone the imprisonment to which he was sentenced. His learned counsel, Mr. Douglas, focussed a most careful and accurate review of the evidence by submitting, first, that there was no such evidence as could properly be left to the jury, and secondly, that the appellant's individual case had not been properly laid before...