Privy Council Court December 1945 Judgments

Shankar Dattatraya Prabhavalkar and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation o ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC53

Lord Thankerton: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in its civil appellate jurisdiction, dated 1st April 1934, which affirmed a judgment and decree of that Court in its original jurisdiction, dated 16th October 1942, whereby the suit of the appellants against the respondents was dismissed. In the suit the appellants challenged the actions of respondent 2 who is the Municipal Commissioner for the City of Bombay, purporting to be taken under the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888 (Bombay Act No. 3 [III] of 1888) in the course of development of the Mahim district of the City, and, in particular, of an area, which included the land now occupied by the Shivaji Park, and the surrounding land, which included the plot of land now owned by the appellants. The appellants originally challenged the bona fides of respondent 2 who may be referred to as the Municipal Commissioner, as well as the validity of his actions, but the former ground was no...

E.L. Ebrahim Lebbe Marikar Vs. AustIn De Mel Ltd.

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC63

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon dated 15th January 1943, setting aside a judgment and decree of the District Court of Colombo dated 16th January 1942, and entering judgment in favour of the defendant-respondent for the sum of Rs. 107,055/81 with interest and costs. The appellant instituted this action on 16th October 1940, in the District Court of Colombo against the respondent for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 56,185/18 being damages sustained by him between 1st April 1940 and 27th May 1940, on certain contracts relating to coupons issued by the Rubber Controller under a Rubber Restriction Scheme in force in Ceylon during the relevant periods under the Rubber Control Ordinance. The export of rubber without such coupons was prohibited. The respondent which was a Company doing the business of brokers in Colombo admitted its liability to the appellant in respect of the said sum, but alleged that on 15th May 194...

The Free Press of India (Madras) Ltd. Vs. James Finlay and Co. Ltd.

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC57

Lord Goddard: The appellants were the plaintiffs in an action brought by them in the High Court of Madras in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction for damages for breach of a contract dated 24th December 1940, for the sale to them by the respondents of 200 long tons of Canadian newsprint shipment in one lot, preferred in January, but in any case before the end of March 1941. They also claimed damages for the wrongful detention of certain licences for the import of newsprint granted to them by the Government of India. The action was tried by Bell J. who dismissed the action so far as it related to the breach of contract, holding that all the respondents had undertaken to do was to use their best endeavours to place the order with suppliers according to the appellants' wishes. On the claim for detention of the licences he found tot the appellants and assessed the damages at Rs. 1995-6-0. On appeal to the High Court of Madras in its appellate jurisdiction the appeal was allowed as rega...

Ram Rattan Vs. Parma Nand

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC51

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated 15th July 1942, which allowed in part an appeal from, and modified the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge of Gurdaspur, dated 3rd March 1941. It is common ground that prior to 1934 the appellant and respondent, who are full brothers, their father Bhodu Shah, and their step brother Wadhawa Mal had formed a joint Hindu family, and that in 1982 Wadhawa Mal instituted a suit for partition. On 27th December 1934, Bhodu Shah having died during the pendency of the suit, Wadhawa Mal on the one hand and the appellant and respondent on the other hand entered into a compromise whereby one-third of the family property was assigned to Wadhawa Mal and two-thirds to the appellant and respondent. The suit in which this appeal arises was instituted by the appellant on 21st December 1939. In his plaint he alleged that after the partition of 1934 he and the respondent remain...

Jagdish NaraIn Vs. Nawab Said Ahmed Khan

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC59

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Allahabad dated 29th April 1941, which modified a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly dated 2nd June 1936. The plaintiffs (who are respondents in this appeal) claimed possession of two-third parts of Muafi property situate in Mauza Bahra Bikram. Their case was that on 8th January 1842, the Government made a grant of the lands in suit in favour of the heirs of Ahmad Khan, who had married Sayara Begum the daughter of Nawab Hafiz Rahmat Khan, who had rendered valuable services to the Government which the Government were minded to reward. The plaint alleged that the grant was made enjoyable in perpetuity generation after generation for the maintenance and help of the heirs of Ahmad Khan, and that each heir was to hold for life only and on the death of an heir the next heir of Ahmad Khan was to take as such heir and not as heir of his predecessor. The plaint further alleged that Ahmad Khan hack no...

Narayanan Chettiar Vs. Kaliappa Chettiar

Court: Privy Council

Lord Thankerton: The present appeal raises a question with regard to the division of an estate in Ceylon which carried both tea and rubber on it and which had been held jointly by a certain number of people. The action is one for partition under the Ceylon Partition Ordinance and proceeded according to the ordinary procedure beginning with an interlocutory decree fixing the shares of the parties and remitting the matter to a Commissioner to carry out the actual partition and suggest the division. A motion by the present appellants that a sale should be ordered of the whole property was rejected and the partition was ordered in its place. A report was made by the Commissioner, objections were taken to it by the present appellants, and these were disposed of by the learned District Judge. They were all disposed of and the only alteration he made in the Commissioner's report was a modification, about which there is no dispute, to provide an adequate water supply for one of the lots. The m...