Privy Council Court December 1949 Judgments

Manmohan Das Vs. United Provinces and Others

Court: Privy Council

SIR JOHN BEAUMONT: These consolidated appeals are from a decree of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated 22nd August 1941, and from an earlier decree of a Division Bench of that Court, dated 30th April 1940, both decrees being made in the winding-up of the Lower Ganges and Jumna Electricity Distributing Co., Ltd., (hereinafter called the company). 2. The question which calls for decision is whether certain mortgage debentures issued by the company for the purpose of securing a sum of Rs. 3 lacs with interest, and secured by a debenture trust deed, constitute a valid charge on the undertaking and assets of the company, or whether the charge upon the undertaking intended to be created in favour of the debenture holders is void by reason of the provisions of S. 9, sub-Ss. (2) and (3), Electricity Act IX [9] of 1910 (hereinafter called the Act). These sub-sections are in the following terms : "9. (2) The licensee shall not at any time assign his licence or tr...

The Bank of India Ltd. and Others Vs. Jamsetji A.H. Chinoy and Messrs. ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1950PC90

LORD MACDERMOTT: These three consolidated appeals are from a decree, dated 22nd September 1947, of the High Court at Bombay (acting in its appellate jurisdiction) which reversed a decree, dated 7th January 1947, of the same Court (acting in its original civil jurisdiction) whereby a suit (No.1086 of 1942) brought by the above named Jamsetji A.H. Chinoy and Messrs. Chinoy and Co. (respondents in the first and second appeals and appellants in the third) was dismissed. 2. This suit was instituted on 24th August 1942, against the above named Edulji F. E. Dinshaw and Bachubai F. E. Dinshaws (hereinafter referred to as "the Dinshaws" as sole defendants. The plaint alleged that the Dinshaws held between them 1,200 A and 1,200 B shares in an Indian company named F.E. Dinshaw Ltd. and had contracted on 8th July 1942, through their agent Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (hereinafter called "Shapoorji'.) to sell these shares to the plaintiff Jamsetji A. H. Chinoy at the price of Rs. 3,000 per collective...

Govindram Gordhandas Seksaria and Another Vs. State of Gondal by His H ...

Court: Privy Council

LORD RADCLIFFE: These are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 8th November 1943. The first of these decrees reversed a judgment against the respondent the State of Gondal in favour of the present appellants which had been given on 15th January 1943, by the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction : the second decree dismissed an appeal by these appellants from the same judgment in so far as it rejected their claim in the suit against respondents 2 and 3. 2. The facts out of which the litigation arises are simple and they have produced no material divergence of view in the Courts in India. The real question is how the law should be applied to those facts. All that it is necessary to notice may be briefly set out as follows. On 1st October 1926, a limited company called The Currimbhoy Mills Co. Ltd., executed a debenture trust deed mortgaging two mills known as the Currimbhoy Mill and the Mahomedbhoy Mill together with certa...

Attorney-general of the Colony of Fiji Vs. J.P. Bayly Ltd.

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1950PC73

LORD SIMONDS: In this appeal, which is brought from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Fiji of 19th September 1946, their Lordships have very reluctantly come to the conclusion that it would not be proper for them to determine the important question of law involved in the judgment. 2. The respondents are the registered proprietors of certain freehold land known as Wainadoi in the district of Veivatuloa on the Island of Viti Levu in the Colony of Fiji, containing 2,900 acres, through which a stream known as the Wainadoi Creek flows to the sea. The stream is not tidal at any point relevant to the proceedings out of which this appeal arises. 3. On 14th March 1944, the respondents preferred a claim against the appellant, the Attorney General of the Colony, to which the Governor in Council gave the proper consent, making allegations and claims which in view of later developments must be stated in some detail. 4. By their statement of complaint the respondents, after stating the facts alread...

Benares Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. the Official Assignee of Calcut ...

Court: Privy Council

SIR LIONEL LEACH: The suit out of which this appeal arises was tried in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad. The real question for decision is whether that Court had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought or whether it was a matter which could only be dealt with by the Calcutta High Court in its insolvency jurisdiction. The answer requires the consideration of a scheme of composition, a deed of transfer executed in connection therewith, and proceedings in insolvency extending over a period of more than 20 years. 2. The appellant is a limited liability company which is now in liquidation. Its business was banking and it will be convenient to refer to it hereinafter as "the bank". In 1909 the bank advanced large sums of money to a partnership of five persons, trading under the style of M. L. Laik and Bannerjee. The loans were made against hundis, which were secured by mortgages of immovable property. Default was made in the repayment of the loans and the bank was compelled to ...

Ram Kissendas Dhanuka and Others Vs. Satya Charan Law and Others

Court: Privy Council

LORD GREENE: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Fort William affirming on appeal a judgment and decree of the same Court in its original jurisdiction. The questions raised in the litigation relate to the validity of two resolutions of the respondent company Lothian Jute Mills Ltd., (hereinafter called "the Company"). By the first of these resolutions (which were passed at a requisitioned general meeting of the Company held on 3rd June 1945), the appellants (other than S.P. Bose, who was one of the requisitionists), seven in number, were appointed to be directors of the Company in addition to the four existing directors, one of whom was the respondent Dr. Satya Charan Law. By the second resolution it was resolved that the termination of the appointment of the managing agents of the Company, Messrs. Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd., was to be recorded and in any event that they were thereby forthwith removed from their office. In the action the respondent Dr. Law o...

N.S. Krishnaswami Ayyangar and Others Vs. Perumal Goundan (Since Decea ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1950PC105

SIR JOHN BEAUMONT: This is a consolidated appeal by special leave from a decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 30th July 1946. At the conclusion of the arguments their Lordships announced that they would humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal be dismissed with costs, and they now give their reasons. 2. The consolidated suits out of which this appeal arises were filed in the year 1939 by the respondents as ryots against the appellants as landowners in the Court of the Deputy Collector Salem, claiming a grant of pattas under S. 55, Madras Estates Land Act of 1908. The respondents claimed rights of permanent occupancy in the lands held by them in the village of Bairoji, District Salem, on the ground that such lands formed part of an estate as defined by the Madras Estates Land Act of 1908 as amended by the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936. The appellants denied that the lands formed part of an estate, and claimed that the said Acts had no application ...

Raj Shatranjai Vs. Raj Raj Bahadur Singh and Another

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1950PC70

LORD SIMONDS: This appeal, which is brought against a decree of the Judicial Commissioners of Oudh dated the 4th June 1918, as varied by an order of the Chief Court of Oudh dated the 18th November 1941, modifying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mohanlalganj of the 18th March 1916, raises the question what upon the true construction of the will of Raj Gobardhan Singh is the interest of the appellant thereunder in certain villages in the Kheri District in Oudh and whether it was proper for the Court to make a declaration in regard thereto. 2. Raj Gobardhan Singh who will be called "the testator" was a taluqdar owning large estates in Oudh including ten villages with which the present appeal is concerned and which will be referred to as "the ten villages". He executed his last will on the 13th November 1903. At that time he had 3 Ranis and one child only, a daughter named Mt. Raj Kunwar who was then childless. His nearest male collateral was his nephew Raj Bachan Singh. 3. On 24th Ju...

Gajambal Ramalingam and Others Vs. Ruknul Mulk Syed Abdul Wajic and Ot ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1950PC64

LORD SIMONDS: This appeal is from a judgment dated 5th July 1944, of the Court of the British Resident in Mysore affirming a judgment dated 22nd November 1943, of the Court of the District Judge, Civil and Military Station of Bangalore, by which it was ordered that probate of the will dated 10th September 1942, with a codicil dated 24th September 1942, of one V. Ramalingam Mudaliar should issue to certain persons who are respondents to this appeal. 2. At the original hearing of the appeal counsel for the respondents took the preliminary point that His Majesty no longer has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the Court of the British Resident in Mysore. Their Lordships having heard this point twice argued, first at the original hearing and then a second time at the request of the appellants, who asked for that indulgence on the ground that there was further matter to put before the Board, are of opinion that the objection is well founded for the reasons which they will now give. 3....

Municipality of Hyderabad Vs. Mangharam Hukumatrai

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1950PC61

LORD RADCLIFFE: This is an ex parte appeal from a decree of the Chief Court of Sind dated 26th May 1942, which reversed a judgment of the first class Subordinate Judge, Hyderabad, dated 8th October 1938. The dispute to which the appeal relates arises out of a contract which the parties entered into on 15th February 1934, and the interpretation of that contract is the central issue of the case. There was a marked divergence between their respective submissions as to the construction of the contract, and a divergence not less marked in the evidence that they tendered on certain important issues of fact. The trial Judge interpreted the contract in a sense favourable to the appellant's contention, while the appeal Court took the opposite view. Nor did the two Courts agree as to the proper findings of fact to be made on the evidence available. But their Lordships think that, once the question is settled as to the interpretation of the contract, the treatment of the evidence presents no grea...