Privy Council Court November 1945 Judgments

Joseph DarmanIn for the Firm C. DarmanIn and Son Vs. Carmel Micallef f ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC50

Lord Thankerton: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal, Malta, dated 9th December 1938, which upheld, by a majority, the judgment of His Majesty's Commercial Court of Malta, dated 31st May 1938, which dismissed the present appellant's action. The appellant, on behalf of the firm C. Darmanin and Son, raised the present action in the Commercial Court, Malta, on 19th February 1938, against the respondent on his own behalf and for his firm, claiming to be entitled to a half share in the profits derived by the respondent from a contract awarded to them by the Royal Engineers on 27th August 1937 for work to be done at Mosta Fort, in the Malta Command. The appellant based his claim on a written agreement dated 18th November 1936, which provided as follows: "By virtue of this present instrument intended to have all legal effects it is hereby agreed as follows : Joseph Darmanin for the firm of C. Darmanin and Son of the one part and Carmel Micallef for firm G. Micallef and So...

Joseph Melville Vs. the King

Court: Privy Council

Viscount Simon: This is an appeal in forma pauperis by special leave from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago, on a question of law reserved for the opinion of the Court by the trial Judge in a case of murder. The appellant, who is an adult, was indicted before Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court of Trinidad and Tobago for the murder of a boy of between 7 and 8 years of age. He was convicted by the jury and sentenced to death, subject to the determination of a question of law raised by way of Case Stated by the trial Judge for the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Colony. The point of law is whether the unsworn evidence of two children, one of 9 or 10 years of age and the other of 11 years of age, was rightly received at the trial. Mr. Justice Smith, while of opinion that the two children possessed sufficient intelligence to justify the reception of the evidence and sufficient understanding to realise the duty of speaking the truth, conside...

Commissioner of Income-tax Bengal Vs. Gurupada Dutta and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Thankerton: This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Port William in Bengal, dated 10th June 1943, delivered on a reference made to it by the Appellate Tribunal under S. 66, Income-tax Act, 1922. The respondents did not appear in the appeal. The respondents constitute a Hindu undivided family, carrying on business at Tejhati in Birbhum district, and also at Nalhati and Lohapur, two other villages there. In assessing the respondents to income-tax for the year 1940-41, on the basis of the previous year 1939-40, the Income-tax Officer assessed the total assessable income of the respondents as a Hindu undivided family at Rs. 17,250, in which he included a sum of Rs. 6563, as being the profits of the Nalhati business assessable under Ss. 6 (iv) and 10 (1) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer disallowed a claim by the respondents to deduct as an allowance authorised by S. 10 (2) of the Act a sum of Rs. 84 paid by them as a union board rate in Nalhati under th...

Prasanna Deb Raikat Vs. Tanjina Khalan and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Goddard: These consolidated appeals arise out of proceedings taken by the appellant in the Court of the Deputy Collector, Siliguri, under the Bengal Rent Act, 10 [X] of 1850, with the object of obtaining an increase of rent from the tenants of certain lands belonging to him in or near Siliguri, a town on the boundary of the districts of Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling. The Act, though no longer in force in the greater part of Bengal, is still effective in Siliguri which is in a scheduled district under the Scheduled District Act, 14 [XIV] of 1874. The proceedings related to three holdings or Jotes, Suit No. 43 to Man Bhog, No. 44 to Nipur Bigha and No. 45 to Ranga Das. The tenants of the appellant on all these Jotes had let them out to under-tenants, receiving from the lettings rents far in excess of the very modest rents that they were paying to the appellant. The head rents had been raised from time to time, but at the date of the proceedings the rent of Man Bhog was Rs. 16-14-0 and t...

Dhup Lal and Others Vs. Emperor

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC43

Viscount Simon: This is an appeal, by way of special leave to appeal, from the judgment of the Chief Court of Oudh, at Lucknow, confirming the conviction of murder and the sentence of death passed upon the three appellants. Special leave was given in order that, in the light of fuller information, the Board might hear the argument, which has been very clearly and candidly advanced by Mr. Khambatta this morning, to the effect that there was some irregularity in the proceedings which would constitute a grave miscarriage of justice unless the appeal were allowed. There are two proposed witnesses for the defence named in the case. As regards Bhagwan Dass, he was properly included in the list of witnesses whom the defence wished to summon and, after the date of the trial had been fixed by the Sessions Court for 1st August to 3rd August, the last of those days being allotted in advance for the defence, Bhagwan Dass was properly served by a summons issued by the committing Magistrate to appea...

Karunapejjalage Bilindi and Others Vs. Wellawa Attadassi thero

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC48

Lord Goddard: This is an appeal from a decree of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon dismissing an appeal by the appellants from a decree of the District Court of Kurunegala on a preliminary objection The objection which the Supreme Court upheld was that there was only one petition of appeal before the Court whereas it was said that there were in truth two appeals and as the petition bore a stamp sufficient to cover only one it was not properly stamped and the Court was bound not to proceed upon it but to dismiss the appeal. In support of their judgment, the Supreme Court cited two cases, (1935) 37 NLR 154 (1) and (1939) 14 Ceylon LW 70, (2) with both of which their Lordships will deal in this judgment. The action out of which this appeal arose was one of ejectment and was originally brought by the present respondent against the present appellants 1 to 11. They were all represented by the same proctor, who duly filed a proxy showing that he was acting for them. During the course...

Messrs. Siddique and Co. Vs. Messrs. Utoomal and Assudamal Co.

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC42

Lord Thankerton: In this appeal it became obvious that there was one crucial point, the decision of which might supersede consideration of any further points. Their Lordships wish to recall the essentials which have to be proved under S. 31, Specific Belief Act, 1877. The plaintiffs (the present respondents) must prove that it was through a mutual mistake of the parties that the three contracts in question did not truly express the intention of the parties; and the duty of the Court, before it can rectify, is to find it clearly proved that there has been mistake in framing the instrument, and it must ascertain the real intention of the parties in executing the instrument. On being satisfied of those two elements, it is in the discretion of the Court to grant rectification. In the present case it is unnecessary to consider the appellant-defendants' conduct or view vis-a-vis the question of mistake. The vital question in the appeal is whether the plaintiffs (the present respondents) have...

Ram Dularey Vs. Ram Lal and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Thankerton: In this appeal there has been no appearance for the respondents; but Mr. Khambatta, on behalf of the appellant, has presented the case with the fairness and candour which we have become accustomed to expect from him. He has confined his argument to one point only, because he, naturally, appreciates the difficulty arising from the fact that there were concurrent findings to the effect that the present trust was a trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature within the meaning of S. 92, Civil PC. The only point made by him, as I understood, was this: that he found in the judgment of the Chief Court an inconsistency in the language, which suggested in one sentence that they were following exactly the terms of the compromise which had been entered into by the parties in a litigation five years or so before the date of the judgment, and that in fact the scheme approved by them materially departs from the terms of the compromise, particularly as rega...