Allahabad Court May 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.
Jaggu Ahir Vs. Murli Shukul
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.84
1. The question referred to is whether the High Court has jurisdiction, under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the Letters Patent, especially Section 22, to transfer from the Court of one Magistrate to the Court of another Magistrate a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. There is a conflict of authority on the point. In In re Pandurang Govind Pujari 25 B. 179, it was held that the High Court had no power, under Section 526 of the Code, to transfer a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code from one Court to another. The reason given is that such a proceeding is not a 'criminal cafe' within the meaning of Section 526; that a criminal case means a case arising out of and dealing with some crime already committed and does not include proceedings taken for the prevention of a crime. The Madras High' Court, in In re Arumuga Tegundan 26 M. 188, dissented from the Bombay case. The learned Judges said: 'We have no doubt of our power to transf...
Ganesh Prasad Vs. Damodardas and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.177
1. When this appeal first came up for hearing, a preliminary objection was taken to the effect that the order complained of was in substance, if not in form, an order dismissing the suit for default, and that no appeal lay. Notice was accordingly issued to the defendants-respondents to show cause why this Court should not take up the matter in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. We have to-day heard both parties, and we consider it unnecessary to discuss or to determine the question whether an appeal does or does not lie. We are satisfied that if an appeal does not lie, the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside in revision as having been passed without jurisdiction. The position was this. The parties had referred the matter dispute to arbitration and had named two arbitrators and an umpire. For some reason or other, the notices issued by the Court to the umpire and to one of the arbitrators were returned unserved. The remaining arbitrator had expressed his willing...
Sheo NaraIn and Lachmi NaraIn Vs. Janki Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All505
Henry Richards, C.J. and Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is, 'whether on a partition between a father and his sons the grandmother, that is, the mother of the father, gets a share, according to the Mitakshara as prevailing in these Provinces.'2. This question has arisen in a suit brought by the plaintiff, Sheo Narain, against his father, Janki Prasad, and his brother, Bisham-bhar, who are governed by the Benares school of the Mitakshara, for partition of joint ancestral property, and he claimed a third share. His stepmother, Musammat Ram Dei, and Musammat Mana, his paternal grandmother, that is, the mother of his father Janki Prasad, were added as defendants. Both of them claimed shares for themselves. It was urged in the court below that the grandmother was not entitled to a share, but this contention was overruled. As there is a conflict of authority on the point, it has been referred to us for determination. We may state that the plaintiff's father...
Emperor Vs. Hardwar Pal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All522
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. The applicant here went to a police station and made a report against several persons, of whom Sher Bahadur Singh was one. He accused them of the offences of rioting and voluntarily causing hurt. The police made inquiry and sent up several persons for trial, but not Sher Bahadur Singh.2. The Magistrate tried the accused and the trial ended in the conviction of some of them. These latter appealed to the Sessions Judge, who acquitted them.3. Thereupon Sher Bahadur Singh made a complaint to the Magistrate, stating the above facts against the present applicant, and charging the latter with having made a false report in respect to himself to the police, which, he said, constituted an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code.4. Objection was taken that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the complaint without sanction obtained, and the terms of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were invoked to support the argument. The Magistrat...
Sheo NaraIn Vs. Janki Parshad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.88
Banerji, J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is, 'whether on a partition between a father and his sons, the grandmother, that is, the mother of the father, gets a share, according to the Mitakshara, as prevailing in these Provinces.'2. This question has arisen in a suit brought by the plaintiff, Shiv Narain, against his father, Janki Prasad, and his brother, Bishambhar, who are governed by the Benares School of the Mitakshara for partition of joint ancestral property, and he claimed a third share. His step-mother, Musammat Ram Dei and Musammat Mana, his paternal grandmother, that is, the mother of his father, Janki Prasad, were added as defendants. Both of them claimed shares for themselves. It was urged in the Court below that the grandmother was not entitled to a share, but this contention was overruled. As there is a conflict of authority on the point, it has been referred to us for determination. We may state that the plaintiff's father, Janki Prasad, is the only son of hi...
Dropadi Vs. Hira Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.149
Henry Richards, C.J.1. One Ram Narain was declared to be insolvent by the Court of Small Causes, Cawnpore, and the respondent was appointed to be Receiver of his estate. On the application of the respondent, under Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act certain transfers made by the insolvent in favour of the applicant were set aside by an order, dated March 18th, 1911. The applicant presented an appeal to the District Judge on April 26th, 1911. His appeal was within limitation only if he was entitled under Section 12 of the Limitation Act to deduct the time spent by him in obtaining a copy of the order of the Court of first instance. The District Judge, following the decision of Knox and Piggott, JJ. in Jugal Kishore v. Gur Narain 33 A. 738 : 8 A.L.J. 833 : 11 Ind. Cas. 197 held that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. This is an application for revision of the order of the District Judge. It has ...
Hardwar Pal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.510
1. The facts out of which this application in revision has arisen are as follows:The applicant here went to a Police station and made a report against several persons, of whom Sher Bahadur Singh was one. He accused them of the offences of rioting and voluntarily causing hurt. The Police made inquiry and sent up several persons for trial but not Sher Bahadur Singh.2. The Magistrate tried the accused and the trial ended in the conviction of some of them. These latter appealed to the Sessions Judge who acquitted them.3. Thereupon, Sher Bahadur Singh made complaint to the Magistrate, stating the above facts against the present applicant, charging the latter with having made a false report in respect to himself to the Police, which, he said, constituted an offence under Section 211, Indian Penal Code.4. Objection was taken that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the complaint without sanction obtained and the terms of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, were invoked to support th...
Muhammad Akhtar HusaIn Khan and ors. Vs. Tasadduq Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All493
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. The suit was one for partition. A preliminary decree was made on the 19th of December, 1907. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal within time against this preliminary decree. Before the appeal was decided, however, a final decree was made on the 10th of March, 1908. The defendant preferred an appeal against the final decree, and the plaintiffs filed cross objections under Order XLI, Rule 22. The two appeals then came before the lower appellate court. It dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal on the ground that they had not appealed from the final decree, and it dismissed the defendant's appeal upon the ground that he had not appealed against the preliminary decree. Both parties appealed to this Court, and our learned brother set aside the decree of the lower appellate court, dismissing the defendant's appeal and remanding the case to be heard on its merits. He, however, dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal on the ground t...
Muhammad Akhtar HusaIn Khan and ors. Vs. Tasadduk Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.157
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances: The suit was one for partition. A preliminary decree was made on December 19, 1907. The plaintiff preferred an appeal within time against this preliminary decree. Before the appeal was decided, however, a final decree was made on March 10, 1908. The defendant preferred, an appeal against the final decree and the plaintiff filed cross-objections under Order XLI, Rule 22. The two appeals then came before the lower Appellate Court. It dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on the ground that he had not appealed from the final decree, and it dismissed the defendant's appeal upon the ground that he had not appealed against the preliminary decree. Both parties appealed to this Court, and our learned brother set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court, dismissing the defendant's appeal and remanding the case to be heard on its merits. He, however, dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on the ground that he ought to have a...
Salig Ram Vs. Ram Kishen Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.51
In this case Salig Ram applied to be declared an insolvent. His application was dismissed because he failed to produce evidence. He applied again and that application was dismissed, the Court holding that the principle of res judicata barred the application. We find ourselves unable to agree with the Court below that the principle of res judicata applies to this case. The question whether the applicant was or was not insolvent was never tried and the mere fact that in consequence of his failure to adduce evidence his former application was dismissed, is no ground for holding that the present application is barred by the principle of res judicata. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Court below, and send the case back to it for trial on the merits. Costs will abide the result....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »