Privy Council Court July 1945 Judgments

Mohamed Sugal Esa Mamasan Rer Alalah Vs. the King

Court: Privy Council

Lord Goddard: Their Lordships now give their reasons for the advice they humbly tendered to His Majesty on 31st July that this appeal should be dismissed. The appellant together with his brother Elmi was charged on 22nd July 1944 before the Protectorate Court of Somaliland with the murder of his half-brother Abdillahi on or about 17th May 1942. The Judge of the Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death, and acquitted Elmi. The conviction and sentence were confirmed on appeal by the Military Governor sitting as Judge of the Protectorate Court on the appellate side and the appellant subsequently obtained special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The ground upon which special leave was given was that the Court had admitted and acted upon the unsworn evidence of a girl of 10 or 11 years of age whom the Judge found was competent to testify but whom he did not consider was able to understand the nature of an oath. It was conceded by the Crown that if her evidence was ...

Sir Mohd. Akbar Khan Vs. Attar Singh (Deceased) and Others

Court: Privy Council

Sir John Beaumont: These are three consolidated appeals from the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, North West Frontier Province. Appeal No.22 covers an appeal and cross appeal from a decree of the said Court dated 10th July 1939 which varied a decree passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Mardan, dated 18th November 1938. Appeal No. 16 is from a decree of the Court of the said Judicial Commissioner, dated 3rd July 1941 which varied an order dated 18th September 1940 passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Mardan, in execution proceedings. Most of the controversy arises on Appeal No. 92 and it will be convenient to deal with that appeal first. On 1st January 1919 the appellant, Sir Mohammad Akbar Khan (herein-after called "the appellant"), and the original respondent 1 S. Attar Singh (hereinafter called "respondent 1"), entered into a deed of partnership for carrying on the business of money-lending. The appellant was to finance the business, and respondent 1 was to manage it. Under ...

V.E.A. Annamalai Chettiar Vs. Vattiammai Achi and Another

Court: Privy Council

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 19th August 1942, affirming an order of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai, dated 10th July 1940. The appeal raises the question whether an application for execution, No. 72 of 1940, preferred on 25th November 1939, for execution of a decree dated 3rd November 1934, is barred by the Limitation Act, and that depends on the construction of Art. 182 of the Act. That article is in the following terms : Description of Application. 182. For the execution of a decree or order of any civil Court not provided for by Art. 183 or by S. 48, Civil PC, 1908. Period of Limitation. Three years. Time from which period begins to run. 1. The date of the decree or order, or 2. (where there has been an appeal) the date of the final decree or order of the appellate Court, or the withdrawal of the appeal, or 3. (where there has been a review of judgment) the date of the decision passed on the review, 4.........

Sri Raja Bommadevara Naganna Naidu Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. Sri Raja ...

Court: Privy Council

Sir Madhavan Nair: This appeal arises out of an application by the appellant who is a judgment-debtor to set aside a court sale of six items of property belonging to him which were sold in execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 38 of 1919 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore, obtained against him by respondent 1, the decree-holder. This appeal relates only to three items of the properties; these being items 4, 5 and 6, specified in the sale proclamation. At the sale the properties were purchased by the decree-holder himself. The application to set aside the sale was made under O. 21, R.90, Civil P.C., which empowers the Court to set aside a sale "on the ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it." This power of the Court is subject to the proviso "that no such sale be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud unless upon the facts proved the Court is satisfied that the appellant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irre...

Atma Singh Vs. Emperor

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC12

Lord Thankerton: In the present appeal it appears now that the appellant, while challenging the evidence of the approver, does not in any way challenge the findings of the Court with regard to the search for, and recovery of, a revolver and its connexion with the accused and with the crime. That being so, it seems to their Lordships unnecessary to go any further into a consideration of the approver's evidence because if it is set aside it is clear that there has been no serious miscarriage of justice, there being amply sufficient evidence in the findings with regard to the revolver, taken along with the dying declaration of the deceased and the evidence of the deceased's elder son, so far as they go, in corroboration of the circumstances. That being so, their Lordships cannot do otherwise than humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed. Appeal dismissed....

In the matter of the Ship Sidi Ifni Angel Saavedra Rios, Master and An ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Roche: This is an appeal by the master and owners of the Spanish ship "Sidi Ifni" from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Gibralter, Admiralty Jurisdiction, sitting in Prize, dated 29th June 1943, in so far as it pronounced that ship to be liable to confiscation upon the ground that she was carrying a cargo of contraband upon a voyage from Malaga to Valencia, Spain, and condemned her as good and lawful prize. By the same judgment, the cargo laden upon the "Sidi Ifni" during this voyage, namely, 269 tons of lemons, was also pronounced to have been contraband and to have had an enemy ownership or destination and as such or otherwise subject and liable to confiscation, and was also condemned as good and lawful prize. No appeal has been entered by any claimant in respect of the cargo and, accordingly, the only question in the present appeal is as to whether upon the facts and in the circumstances the ship was rightly condemned as good and lawful prize. The "Sidi Ifni" is a Spanish shi...

Madan theatres, Ltd. Vs. Dinshaw and Co., Bankers Ltd., Through Offici ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Porter. - This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Chief Court of Oudh at Lucknow dated 17th March 1942, which affirmed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Civil Judge at Lucknow dated 23rd May 1940. The facts may be shortly stated. On 2nd July 1931, the appellants executed a simple mortgage deed for Rs. 1,50,000 in favour of the respondent bank. Some portion of this sum was paid off but on 25th August 1934, the bank instituted a mortgage suit against the appellants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow to recover Rs. 78,542-1-3 by sale of the mortgaged property. The bank also filed an application with the plaint praying for an attachment before judgment and the appointment of a receiver in respect of a portion of the hypothecated property and on 11th September 1934, the Court of the Civil Judge passed an order granting this application and appointing a receiver. On 18th September, an agreement was entered into between the parties whereby the exploitati...

Emperor Vs. Sibnath Banerji and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Thankerton: This appeal is brought by leave of the Federal Court of India, from a judgment of that Court (Spens CJ, Varadachariar and zafrulla Khan JJ.) dated 31st August 1943, dismissing eight appeals by the Crown against orders and judgments of a Divisional Bench of three Judges (Mitter and Sen JJ., Khundkar J. dissenting) of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated 3rd June 1943. The orders and judgments of the High Court were made upon applications under S. 491, Criminal PC, for directions in the nature of habeas corpus on behalf of nine persons, detained in various jails in pursuance of orders made under R. 26, Defence of India Rules, on various dates from 24th October 1940 to 8th March 1943. These orders and judgments directed the release of the applicants. Of the nine original applicants, eight are called as respondents in the present appeal, but their Lordships were informed that two of the respondents had been released, namely, Narendra Nath Sen Gupta...

Olive French Marsh Vs. Norman Leslie Fits Morns Marsh

Court: Privy Council

Lord Goddard: On 12th June 1936, the respondent issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Judicature, Jamaica, claiming to be the only lawful brother, sole next of kin, and heir at law of Osmond Vincent Marsh, deceased, who died on 11th January 1936, intestate, and claiming administration of his estate. The writ was issued against the appellant because she had entered a caveat and had alleged that she was the widow of the deceased. The statement of claim denied the interest of the appellant and alleged that she had been divorced by the deceased, a decree nisi obtained by him on 10th January 1933, having been made absolute on 19th January 1934. By her defence the appellant disputed the validity of the decree absolute. Concisely stated the allegations set out in para. 3 of the defence were that on 15th January 1934 one E.A.L. Hodge, pursuant to S. 19 of the Divorce Law of 1879 and R.35 of the Divorce Rules appeared in the proceedings to show cause against the decree being made absolute, but ...

Nur Mohammad Vs. Emperor

Court: Privy Council

Lord Thankerton: In the present appeal only one question has been raised and that, as stated in the order granting leave, is a contention that the trial Court "having held there was no evidence at all on which any conviction could be based a Court of Criminal Appeal is not justified in reversing the Court of first instance by placing reliance on the very evidence which had been entirely rejected by the Court of first instance." Their Lordships were referred, rightly enough, to the decision of this Board in the case in 61 IA 398,1and in particular to the passage at p. 404 in the judgment delivered by Lord Russell. Their Lordships do not think it necessary to read it all again, but would like to observe that there really is only one principle, in the strict use of the word, laid down there; that is, that the High Court has full power to review at large all the evidence upon which the order of acquittal, was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquitt...