CASE SUMMARY: PART 13

Inter-Continental Mining Sdn Bhd vs. Societe des Etains de Bayas Tudjuh [1974] 1 MLJ 145
●Land Law●
“While an agreement to deal in land is insufficient to vest title to or an interest in land, it is necessary still good as a contract. In appropriate cases, the remedy of specific performance or damages in lieu thereof may be obtained in respect of the agreement”


International General Electric Co of New York Ltd vs. Customs and Excise Commissioner [1962] 2 All ER 398
●Land Law●
“The court had jurisdiction in interlocutory proceedings to make a final, and not merely an interim, declaration affecting the rights of a party, but that jurisdiction would only be exercised sparingly and infrequently”


Inwards vs. Baker [1965] 2 QB 29
●Land Law●
“Equity would also arise where the landowner merely encouraged the builder’s belief passively, as where the mortgagee stood silently by while a purchaser, in ignorance of the mortgage built in the land”


Jackson vs. White and Midland Bank [1967] 2 Llyod’s Rep 68
●Law of Partnership●
“The court refused to hold that there had been a partnership agreement since no particular contractual intention can be attributed to the parties. From this case, we can conclude that, the agreement solely cannot be a point in existing of a partnership. There must be a contractual intention or consent by both parties.”


Jai Dev and Hari Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR [1963] SC 612
●Criminal Law●
“It is no doubt true that in striking a decisive below, he must not use more force than appears to be reasonably necessary. But in dealing with the question as to whether more force is used than necessary or than was justified by the prevailing circumstances, it would be inappropriate to adopt tests of detached objectively which would be so natural in Court room, for instance, long after the incident has taken place”


Jarha Chamar vs. Surit Ram [1907] 3 Nag LR 177
●Criminal Law●
“If A runs away with B’s watch, B may chase him until he effects his retreat, but the right of self defence does not end with his escape. If B sees A the next day, the next month, or the next year, wearing the stolen watch, B may forthwith seize A and recover his watch”


Jemadar Sabty vs. Virtashellum [1871] SLR 431
●EQUITY●
“Specific Performance was decreed in line with the maxim that a statute cannot be allowed to be made an instrument of fraud”


John Shaw & Sons (Salford) Ltd vs. Shaw[1935] 2 KB 113
●Company Law●
Greer LJ held that, some of its powers according to its article of association are exercised by the directors, certain others powers may be reserved to the shareholders in general meeting. Decision to commence proceeding was within the board’s general powers of management provided for in the company’s articles of association and that the members could not override the board’s decision.


Jones vs. Clifford [1876] LR 3 Cg D 779
●Criminal Law●
“Private right of ownership is matter of fact, it may be the result also of matter of law, but if parties contract under a mutual mistake and misapprehension as to their relative and respective rights, the result is that the agreement is liable to be set aside as having proceed upon a common mistake”


Joyce vs. DPP [1946] AC 347
●Public International Law●
“The offence of treason may be committed by ant person owing allegiance to the Crown who has done a treasonable act, where that act took place”