Privy Council Court October 1945 Judgments

Mamand and Others Vs. Emperor

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC45

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dismissing an appeal by the three appellants against a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Shahpur District, at Sargodha, convicting the appellants of the murder of one Naman and sentencing appellants 1 and 3 to death and appellant 2 to transportation for life. The High Court confirmed the said death sentences. At the conclusion of the arguments, their Lordships announced that they would humbly advise His Majesty that the appeals should be dismissed, and they now give their reasons for such advice. The learned Judges of the High Court accepted the evidence of three eye-witnesses Raja Sarwar Khan (P.W. 11), Barkat (P. W. 13), and Samand (P. W. 15) as to the manner in which the murder was carried out. The story of these three witnesses, which was in substantial agreement, was that they heard a commotion at the dera of one Gahra, that they saw appellants 2 and 3 beating with sticks Naman who was ...

British South Africa Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Privy Council

Viscount Simon: This appeal from a judgment of the Rhodesian Court of Appeal which affirmed a judgment of the High Court of Northern Rhodesia, raises the question whether certain additional assessment to income-tax made in Northern Rhodesia upon the appellant company, the British South Africa Company, for the years ending 31st March 1938, 1939 and 1940, were validly made and ought to be upheld. Inasmuch as the issue in their Lordships opinion ultimately turns upon the nature of the business carried on by the company and of the receipts, in respect of which the assessments in question were made, a consideration of the company's history and of its transactions in relation to these receipts is necessary. The company was incorporated by Royal Charter on 29th October 1889. The Charter recites the petition by the Duke of Abercora and others associated with him for incorporation and that the existence of a powerful British company controlled by Her Majesty's subjects in whom she had confidenc...

Babu Anand Behari Lal Vs. Messrs, Dinshaw and Co., Bankers Ltd., Luckn ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC24

Lord Thankerton: The present appeal arises out of an application by the present appellant for permission to proceed in the liquidation under S. 171, Companies Act, with an application in which he or his predecessor applied to have his name substituted for that of the respondent Bank in a preliminary mortgage decree. The whole warrant for that application was based on an assignment alleged to have been made by the respondent Bank in favour of the appellant prior to the date of liquidation. That document, on the face of it, shows that it was not signed by any director or official of the Bank. It shows, further, as far as one can see, no signature on behalf of the Bank. Issue 5, which has been considered and as to which concurrent findings have been made by the Courts in India, raises a question of the authority of Balakram to act on behalf of the Bank. That was based on an alleged power-of-attorney by the Bank in favour of Balakram. The principal of the power-of-attorney has not been pro...

K.A. Krishna Vs. the Indo-union Assurance Co., Ltd.

Court: Privy Council

JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RUNS AS FOLLOWS : Leach C. J.: The appellant-company appeals against the decree passed in a suit tried on the Original Side of this Court awarding damages to the respondent for wrongful dismissal. On 17th November 1939 the appellant appointed the respondent the secretary of the company and on 5th April 1940 the terms of his employment were reduced to writing. On 23rd July 1941 the company appointed one K. S. Ramamurthi to be its general manager. The respondent resented this and on 29th of that month he absented himself from the office. He subsequently applied for leave, but this was refused. He did not return to his duties and on 20th October 1941 he filed this suit claiming a decree for Rs. 17,735 as damages for wrongful dismissal. The learned Judge (Chandrasekhara Aiyar J.) held that he had been wrongly dismissed and awarded him the sum of Rs. 6830. The respondent agreed to serve the appellant as the secretary of its business at Madr...

Brij Bhushan Singh Vs. Emperor

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC38

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment and order of the Chief Court of Oudh at Lucknow dated 5th May 1944, varying as to sentence only an order of the Sessions Judge at Lucknow dated 10th January 1944, by which the appellant was found guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder of one Bilasia, his wife's bandi maidservant, under para. 2 of S. 304, Penal Code, and was sentenced to six years' rigorous imprisonment, a sentence which, by the said variation was reduced to a period of about four months which the appellant had already served. At the conclusion of the arguments, their Lordships announced that they would humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be allowed and that they would give their reasons later. This they now proceed to do. The original charge against the appellant was under S. 302 of the said Code for the murder of Bilasia, but he was committed for trial on the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to mu...

Kwaku Mensah Vs. the King

Court: Privy Council

Lord Goddard: Their Lordships now give their reasons for the humble advice which they have tendered to His Majesty that this appeal should be allowed and a verdict of manslaughter substituted for that of murder. The appeal was brought by special leave against a judgment of the West African Court of appeal dismissing the appellant's appeal against his conviction for the murder of one Abudv Zabrama before Lane J. and a special jury on 15th May 1943. It appears that in the early morning of 27th November 1942, the deceased man with some of others of his tribe, the Zabrama, arrived at the village of Kajakron, where the appellant lived, carrying bundles of cloth which they were intending to smuggle into French territory. According to the witnesses for the prosecution they reached the village when it was light, either just before or just after daybreak, while according to the defence they arrived in the dark when the villagers were asleep. An alarm was given by someone, and there were cries o...

Sohrabji Dhunjibhoy Medora and Another Vs. the Oriental Government Sec ...

Court: Privy Council

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a decree dated 18th November 1943, made by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its appellate jurisdiction affirming a decree dated 14th April 1943, of the same Court passed in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. In the suit the appellants who were plaintiffs claimed damages against the respondents for breach of contract. Both Courts in India held that the contract between the parties was terminable by the respondent on reasonable notice and that in the circumstances of the case two years' notice was a reasonable notice and accordingly that the notice of 3 months by which the respondents had purported to terminate the agreement was not reasonable; and damages were awarded to the plaintiffs on that basis. On a counter-claim judgment was given for the respondents. Before their Lordships' Board the appellants have raised five questions : (1) Whether the contract under which the appellants were employed as agents for the respondents was ...

The Advocate Co. Ltd. Vs. Arthur Leslie Abraham

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC13

Lord Goddard: The action out of which this appeal arises was brought by the respondent to recover damages for libel published by the appellants of him in their newspaper the "Barbados Advocate." He complained of two publications, one in the issue of 3rd April 1943, and another in that of 15th April. The action was tried before the Chief Justice of Barbados and a special jury. His Honour held that the publication of 15th April was not defamatory of the respondent and withdrew it from the jury. There is no cross appeal so it is unnecessary to refer to it further. He left the other alleged libel to the jury, who gave a verdict for the respondent with 2296 5s. od. as damages, a curious sum considering that no special damage was alleged, and judgment was entered accordingly. The appellants appeal on the grounds (1) that the words were incapable of a meaning defamatory of the respondent; (2) that inadmissible evidence was received in that all the witnesses for the respondent were asked and s...