Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Giga Vs. Muhammad Amin

Giga vs Muhammad Amin

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Oct 04, 1912
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/474444

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Arbitration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Workmen's Breach of Contract Act (XIII of 1859), applicability of - Loan advanced to workman not for doing any specific work. - - I find that the objection taken by the applicant need not be considered as his application must fail on another ground.

Key legal issue
Arbitration

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Giga

Respondent

Muhammad Amin

Legal References

Reported In
17Ind.Cas.799

Excerpt

workmen's breach of contract act (xiii of 1859), applicability of - loan advanced to workman not for doing any specific work. - - i find that the objection taken by the applicant need not be considered as his application must fail on another ground.rafique, j.1. this is an application in revision by one giga, praying that the order of the learned cantonment magistrate, dated the 23rd of july 1912, be set aside. it appears that giga had employed muhammad amin, the opposite party, to work at the shop of the former. muhammad amin took a loan from the applicant for which he gave an agreement. before the loan had been paid off, muhammad amin left the service of giga. the latter filed a complaint under act xiii of 1859, in the court of the cantonment magistrate, for the recovery of the loan or for an order directing muhammad amin to return to work. the learned magistrate referred the matter to arbitration. the majority of the arbitrators filed an award decreeing rs. 51-4-0, to giga, the applicant. that sum, i understand, has been paid. it is contended for the applicant that the learned magistrate had no jurisdiction to delegate his powers under act xiii. of 1859, to arbitrators. i find that the objection taken by the applicant need not be considered as his application must fail on another ground. the loans that can be recovered under act xiii of 1859, are the loans which are advanced by employers to their workmen for doing specific work. in the present case, it is admitted that the money advanced to muhammad amin was not advanced for doing any particular work. whatever work he was doing at the time that he took the loan had been finished and nothing of it remained to be done. under these circumstances the applicant's petition to the learned magistrate could not be entertained, vide in the matter of anusoori sanyasi 28 m. 37 (f.b.); 2 cr. l.j. 149. the application fails and is rejected.

Full Judgment

Rafique, J.

1. This is an application in revision by one Giga, praying that the order of the learned Cantonment Magistrate, dated the 23rd of July 1912, be set aside. It appears that Giga had employed Muhammad Amin, the opposite party, to work at the shop of the former. Muhammad Amin took a loan from the applicant for which he gave an agreement. Before the loan had been paid off, Muhammad Amin left the service of Giga. The latter filed a complaint under Act XIII of 1859, in the Court of the Cantonment Magistrate, for the recovery of the loan or for an order directing Muhammad Amin to return to work. The learned Magistrate referred the matter to arbitration. The majority of the arbitrators filed an award decreeing Rs. 51-4-0, to Giga, the applicant. That sum, I understand, has been paid. It is contended for the applicant that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to delegate his powers under Act XIII. of 1859, to arbitrators. I find that the objection taken by the applicant need not be considered as his application must fail on another ground. The loans that can be recovered under Act XIII of 1859, are the loans which are advanced by employers to their workmen for doing specific work. In the present case, it is admitted that the money advanced to Muhammad Amin was not advanced for doing any particular work. Whatever work he was doing at the time that he took the loan had been finished and nothing of it remained to be done. Under these circumstances the applicant's petition to the learned Magistrate could not be entertained, vide In the matter of Anusoori Sanyasi 28 M. 37 (F.B.); 2 Cr. L.J. 149. The application fails and is rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial