Allahabad Court January 1912 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mrs. E.C. Blanchett Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.417
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against the Secretary of State for India in Council as re. presenting the Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway. It appears that on the 6th of May 1908, a, collision took place between Dasna and Ghaziabad Railway stations, with the result that the plaintiff's husband, who was an Engine Driver in the employment of the Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway, was killed. He was a man aged 38f years and his wages are stated to have averaged Rs. 280-4-0 a month, which evidently includes his remuneration for over-time work. Dasna is a station on the Oudh and Rohilkhand line which is a single line at that point. Ghaziabad is a station which is used both by the Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway and the Bast Indiau Railway and other Railways, but the servants employed in Ghaziabad are not the direct servants of the Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway. Efforts had been made by inquiries and by prosecutions to arrive at some conclusion as to bow the accident occurred. Th...
Gauri Shankar Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.1006
Griffin, J.1. In the coarse of an inquiry under the provisions of Section 23 of the Legal Practitioners Act, regarding the conduct of a Revenue Agent, the applicant now before me, Gauri Shankar Lal, gave certain evidence on oath, which the presiding officer, Mr. Jopling, considered to be false. Under the provisions of Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr. Jopling directed the prosecution of the applicant for giving false evidence. Qauri Shankar Lal applies in revision to this Court. It is contended on his behalf that Mr. Jopling in holding the inquiry under Section 23 of the Legal Practitioners Act was not a Court within the meaning of Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having regard to the definition of Court contained in the Evidence Act and the Penal Code, I do not think this contention can prevail.2. A further ground taken is that Mr. Jopling was not competent to hold an inquiry under Section 23 of the Legal Practitioners Act. It is not clear under what cir...
Ahmad Said Khan Vs. Masi-ullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.975
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant for an 8 annas share of the profits of a mahal of which the defendant-respondent is the lambardar. The owner of a 6 annas share mortgaged it to one Muhammad Yusuf Khan, who sub-mortgaged it to Zohra Begam who was herself the owner of a 2 annas share in the mahal. Zohra Begam gave a lease of the whole 8annas share to the appellant, and it is on the strength of that lease that the appellant in the present case has claimed a share of profits as against the lambardar. One of the defences to the suit was that the lease WAS not in force during 2 of the 3 years in question. It appears that the mortgage was redeemed in August 1906, that is to say, at the end of 1318 Falsi. It is contended that the lease must have come to an end when the mortgage was redeemed. The lower Appellate Court accepted that argument and gave the appellant a decree for only a 2-annas share of the profits for the years 1314 and 1315 Fastis. In second appeal, it...
Gulzari Lal Vs. Gunga Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.652
Griffin, J.1. The applicant, Gulzari Lal, had filed a complaint against certain persons charging them with an offence under Section 477 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was pending for about two years in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Naini Tal. On the 8th June 1911, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order directing the complainant to pay Rs. 46-8-0 for expenses to the two accused and Rs. 18, to a witness. On the 9th June, he passed a farther order directing the camplainant to pay Rs. 45 to the accused. On the 28th June, in the absence of the complainant, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the complaint and in his order of dismissal directed the complainant to pay Rs. 45 to the accused. The complainant went in revision to the District Magistrate against the order of the 9th June. This application was dismissed by ths District Magistrate by an order of the 27th June 1911. The complainant now applies to this Court for revision of the lower Court's order of the...
Mutasaddi Lal Vs. Mule Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All205
Chamier, J.1. On November, the 24th, I called upon the Additional Judge to explain how he came to exercise jurisdiction in this case and to forward to this Court, copies of any general or special orders bearing upon the question. The report now made by the Additional Judge and the copies of orders submitted by him show that in 1907 the District Judge of Meerut assigned to the Additional Judge all appeals, applications and miscellaneous cases coming from the Muzaffarnagar district, and it is in pursuance of those orders that the present Additional Judge entertained the appeal in the present case. It is contended that the District Judge had no power to make over the work of the Muzaffarnagar district to the Additional Judge and that the word assign in Section 21, Sub-section (3), of the Civil Courts Act does not refer to action to be taken by the District Judge but to action to be taken by the Local Government. There is no Section in the Act which empowers the Local Government to assign ...
Mutsadi Lal Vs. Mule Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.384
Chamier, J.1. On November the 2lth I called upon the Additional Judge to explain how he came to exercise jurisdiction in this case and to forward to this. Court copies of any general or special orders bearing upon the question. The report now made by the Additional Judge and the copies of orders submitted by him show that in 1907 the District Judge of Meerut assigned to the Additional Judge all appeals, applications and miscellaneous cases coming from the Muzaffernagar district, and it is in pursuance of those orders that the present Additional Judge entertained the appeal in the present case. It is contended that the District Judge had no power to make over I he work of the Muzaffernagar district to the Additional Judge and that the word 'assign' in Section 21 Sub-section (3) of the Civil Courts Act does not refer to action to be taken by the District Judge but to action to be taken by the Local Government. There is no Section in the Act which empowers the Local Government to assign t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›