Privy Council Court July 1943 Judgments

Sheikh Rahmat Ilahi Vs. Mohammad Hayat Khan and Others

Court: Privy Council

LORD CLAUSON: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Lahore, sitting as a Court of second appeal, dated 25th April 1939, allowing an appeal from a judgment of 4th August 1986 of a District Judge, which affirmed the decision of a Subordinate Judge of 2nd August 1935 dismissing a suit of Mt. Umrao Begum (whom it will be convenient to call the plaintiff) who died on 25th June 1938 pending the appeal to the High Court, against Sheikh Rahmat Ilahi (whom it will be convenient to call the defendant). Two questions arise for their Lordships' determination, first, whether it was competent to the High Court to entertain the appeal from the District Judge, and, second, whether, assuming the appeal to be competent, the High Court were right in reversing the decision of the District Judge and holding, as they did, that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief claimed by her in the suit. In a previous suit the defendant bad obtained on 30th March 1943 a decree for Rs. 80,000 and inte...

Anant Bhikkappa Patil, Minor, by Next Friend Gangabai Kom Bhikkappa Vs ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1943PC196

SIR GEORGE RANKIN: The appellant Anant brought the present suit in 1932 to recover certain watan properties from the respondent Shankar to whom possession had been given in 1928 by order of a revenue Court. The properties in suit are the patilki right and the patilki watan lands of the village of Alnavar in the district of Dharwar in the Province of Bombay. These properties are governed by the Bombay Hereditary Office Act (Bombay Act 3 of 1874) as amended by Bombay Act 5 of 1886, which imposes upon them a special rule of succession whereby every female, other than the widow of the last male owner, is postponed to every male member of the watan family qualified to inherit. No other feature special to watan property was relied on or discussed in the Courts in India or mentioned in the printed cases lodged by the parties upon this appeal; and their Lordships are not called upon or prepared to consider whether upon other grounds the law applicable to watandars or watan property varies from...

Babu Jyoti Bhushan and Others Vs. Babu Shiva Prasad Gupta and Another

Court: Privy Council

SIR GEORGE RANKIN: This appeal arises out of execution proceedings taken to enforce a partition decree dated 25th February 1926. The decree which was based on an award dated 30th November 1925, directed the members of one branch of a Hindu family to pay to the respondent Shiva Prasad, who represented another branch, the sum of Rs. 13,68,358 for the purpose of equalising the values of the allotted shares. The question is whether the sum still due and unpaid in respect of this obligation is a "debt" within the meaning of the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1934 (United Provinces Acts, 36 of 1931 and 4 of 1935), herein referred to as "the Act," or whether, as held by the High Court, the Act has no application thereto. Section 2 of the Act is a definition section in the sense indicated by its opening words and the first of a number of words and phrases therein defined or explained is the word "debt:" 9. In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context; (a) 'debt' incl...

Patiala State Bank, Appellant V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Pr ...

Court: Privy Council

LORD ROMER: The Patiala State Bank (the appellant in this case) is owned and controlled by the Maharajah of Patiala who constitutes the Government of that State. The head office and all the branches of the bank are situated in the State and it does not carry on any part of its business in British India. But, in the year ending 31st March 1935, the bank collected and received in British India through the hands of its agents sums representing the interest on certain Government of India securities that it had acquired in the course and for the purposes of its business. In the same year, it also received in British India, through its agents there, a substantial sum of money representing the profits accruing to it in respect of the sale at a profit of various investments similarly acquired. It is got and it cannot be disputed that all these sums of money represented profits or gains of the appellant's banking business for the year in question. In these circumstances, the Senior Income-tax O...

Abitibi Power and Paper Co., Ltd. Vs. Montreal Trust Co. and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1944PC7

Lord Atkin: This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario who by a majority (Gillanders J., dissenting) dismissed the appeal of the appellant from an order of Middleton J. A. which, ordered that all the property of the company should be sold by public auction. The question in the case is the validity of Acts of the Ontario Legislature, the Abitibi Power and Paper Co. Ltd. Moratorium Act, 1941, and a further Act the Abitibi Power and Paper Co. Ltd. Moratorium Act, 1942. The Acts were passed in the following circumstances. The appellant company was incorporated in 1914 by Letters Patent of the Dominion of Canada to acquire the undertaking of the existing company The Abitibi Pulp and Paper Co. In 1928 it made an issue of first mortgage gold bonds due 1953, of which in the year 1932 $48,267,000 with interest at 5 per cent were outstanding. The bonds were charged on the whole property and undertaking of the company. There were also issued $1,000,000 in 10,000 shares of 7 per cent, ...

Kedarnath Himatsingka Vs. Rani Prabhabati Saheba and Others

Court: Privy Council

SIR MADHAVAN NAIR: These are consolidated appeals from two separate but identical orders of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 23rd January 1939 and 26th January 1939, respectively, in civil Revision No. 563 of 1938 and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 89 of 1932, which affirmed the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dumka dated 15th August 1938. The appellant before the board is the receiver appointed by a consent order of the High Court dated 23rd December 1932, in consolidated Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 89-93 of 1932, of a Ghatwali tenure known as the Hendwe Estate held by respondent 10, the proprietress of the said estate under the Banaili Raj, represented by respondents 1 to 9. Shortly stated, the main question for determination is whether the appellant has a prior right to reimburse himself from the collections of the estate in respect of certain loans advanced or raised by him to and for the estate at the express orders of the Subordinate Court and the High Court on various occa...