Allahabad Court January 1913 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Dina Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All173
Tudball, J.1. This matter and Revisions Nos. 1012 and 1013 of 1912, arise out of the following circumstances:The three applicants Lala Dina Nath, L. Kashi Ram and L. Hazari Lal, and one Lala Devi Dat are the directors of the Union Indian Sugar Mills Company, Ld., Cawnpore. They were placed upon their trial on the complaint of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies on a charge under Section 74 of the Companies Act, VI of 1882, no balance sheet having been filed with the Registrar within the time fixed or within the extension allowed by him; the offence being that of knowingly and wilfully authorizing or permitting the default mentioned above. The case was tried summarily by a Magistrate of the first class, who acquitted Lala Devi Dat and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 on each of the other directors. The three latter have come here in revision. A great deal has been said about the merits of the case, but in view of the order which I am going to pass I abstain from making any remarks thereon...
Tag this Judgment!Dina Nath and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.665
Tudball, J.1. This matter and Revisions Nos. 1012 and 1013 of 1912 arise out of the following circumstances:2. The three applicants, Lala Dina Nath, Lala Kashi Ram and Lala Hazari Lal, and one Lala Debi Dat are the Directors of the Union Indian Sugar Mills Company, Ld., Cawnpore. They were placed upon their trial on the complaint of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies on a charge under Section 74 of the Companies Act VI of 1832, no balance-sheet having been filed with the Registrar within the time fixed or within the extension allowed by him, the offence being that of knowingly and wilfully authorising or permitting the default mentioned above. The case was tried summarily by a Magistrate of the first class, who acquitted Lala Debi Dat and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 on each of the other Directors. The three latter have come here in revision. A great deal has been said about the merits of the case, but in view of the order which I am going to pass, I abstain from making any remarks ...
Tag this Judgment!Prohit Basant Lal and anr. Vs. Nurul Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.530
Tudball, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows: One Prohit Har Sarup was the lambardar of a village and he gave a lease to the plaintiff-respondent, Nurul Hasan. Under the terms of the lease, it was the duty of the lessor to pay the Government demand for revenue. In the years 1312, 1313 and 1314, the lessor apparently failed to carry out this term of the agreement. The lease was subsequently set aside on the suit of one of the co-sharers. Nurul Hasan then brought the suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen, to recover the sum of money paid to the Government as revenue. He impleaded all the co-sharers. After an appeal and a remand, the Court of first instance gave a decree to the plaintiff not jointly as against all the co-sharers, but for specific sums against them separately. The present appellant, Prohit Basant Lal, is the representative-in-title of the original lessor, Har Sarup. Four separate appeals were brought by nine of the defendants in res...
Tag this Judgment!Bakht Bahadur and ors. Vs. Kishun NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.543
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage, dated the 5th of August 1870. The plaintiffs sued as purchasers of a part of the mortgaged property and also as assignees of the mortgage over the remainder. Fifteen persons were made defendants as being in possession of portions of the mortgaged property. The plaintiffs have sued to recover against the various sets of defendants an amount of the mortgage money proportionate to the value of the property in their possession. One of the defences set up in the Court of first instance was that the mortgage had already been satisfied. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiffs' suit. It decreed the claim against defendant No. 1 in respect of a sum of Rs. 1,742-5-6, which sum was recoverable from a certain share in a village. A similar decree was passed against defendant No. 2 and defendants Nos, 9 to 15 recoverable from another share in the same village. Similarly in respect of defendants Nos. 3 to 6 and again in respect of defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Shanker and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.676
1. Shankar, Hanuman, Tippal, Sheorajwa, Mindua, and Dujva Pasis were committed to the Court of Session at Allahabad. The Magistrate who committed them to the Court of Session for trial framed one charge-sheet. He charged all six with having, on the 17th of August 1912, at Amura 'committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Sheoratan and Madhva Pasis and in connection therewith having caused injuries to Musammat Maiki, wife of Madhva, and Gauri, and having thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 323, Indian Penal Code.' We have seldom come across a charge-sheet so carelessly and badly drawn up as the present. The case, moreover, shows the paramount necessity of the Court of Session examining carefully every charge-sheet on which accused are committed to it for trial, and when doing so making such amendments, and alterations in the charge-sheet as appear called for. If the learned Sessions Judge had carefully considered the charge-sheet, he would have fou...
Tag this Judgment!Adli Vs. Musammat Personi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.713
Rafique, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for maintenance brought by the plaintiff-respondent, Musammat Personi, a Hindu wife, against her husband, the defendant-appellant.2. The claimed Rs. 5 per mensem as maintenance on the ground that her husband had taken to himself another wife and had since then, been ill-treating her (the plaintiff-respondent) and had turned her out of the house declining to support her anymore.3. The defendant-appellant resisted the suit by denying the alleged ill-treatment and expulsion of the plaintiff-respondent. He further said that she was a woman of bad temper and worse manners. She was unable to cook meals and do other household work on account of which he had to take another and more suitable wife to himself. The plaintiff-respondent, he said, had been abducted from his house by her father who had instigated her to bring the present suit and made her children to return to him. He was willing to support her if she went back to live with him.4. The l...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Sahai Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.811
Rafique, J.1. It appears that one Jumna Das owned some zemindari property in Mauza Basi in the District of Meerut. He died more than fifty years ago, leaving him surviving a widow and a daughter called Musammat Nanhi and Musammat Dharmo, respectively. On the death of Jumna Das, Musammat Nanhi entered in possession of the zemindari property of her deceased husband as a Hindu widow. She executed in 1879 a deed of usufructuary mortgage in respect of the said zemindari property in favour of certain persons. Musammat Dharmo brought a suit in the life time of her mother for the cancellation of that mortgage but was defeated on the ground that the mortgage was given for legal necessity. Musammat Nanhi died in 1892 without redeeming the mortgage of 1879. On her death, mutation of names in respect of her husband's zemindari property was effected in 1892 in favour of one Ganga Sahai with the consent of Musammat Dharmo. The mortgagees, however, remained in possession till March 1911, when Ganga S...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ratan Lal Vs. Abdul Wahid Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.503
1. It appears that one Musammat Jafri Begam was a part proprietress of the villages of Mirpur, Qamaruddinnagar, Ataipur Jadid, Raipur and Nehalpur, situate in the District of Farrukhabad. She executed a deed of simple mortgage on the 10th of October 1902 in respect of her shares in the said villages in favour of her son-in-law, Muhammad Yusuf Ali Khan, in lieu of Rs. 2,500. The sum of Rs. 635-8-0 out of the mortgage loan was left in the hands of Muhammad Yusuf Ali Khan for payment to one Abdul Rahim Khan a prior mortgagee.2. Musammat Jafri Begam died without redeeming the mortgage of 1902 and left her surviving a son and a daughter called Abdul Wahid Khan and Musammat Zebun-nissa Begam respectively.3. Muhammad Yusuf Ali Khan is the husband of Musimmat Zebun-nissa Begam.4. Under the Muhammadan Law, Abul Wahid Khan inherited two thirds and his sister Musammat Zebun-nissa one-third of the property left by their mother. The brother and' the sister became liable for the payment of their mot...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Chand and ors. Vs. Bachnun Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.492
1. The facts which have given rise to the present appeal are as follows: On January 6th, 1892, a mortgage was given by Bechan Singh to one Faqir Chand. The latter died on November 13,1893, leaving him surviving Musammat Sone Kuar, his widow and some nephews amongst whom was Tara Chand. On February 13, 1894, Musammat Sone Kuar obtained a succession certificate under Act VII of 1839. Her application for the certificate was not opposed by the nephews of her husband. On January 10, 1901, Tara Chand, one of the nephews of Faqir Chand, instituted a suit for partition of the joint property making Musammat Sone Kuar as one of the defendants in the case. On January 16th, 1901, Musammat Sone Kuar-executed a deed of assignment in favour of Babu Ran Bahadur Singh in respect of the mortgage of January 6th, 1892. The assignee sued on foot of the mortgage and obtained a decree on November 10th, 1903. In execution of his decree, he put up the mortgaged property for sale and the property was sold on Se...
Tag this Judgment!Musai Lal Vs. Kashi Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.893
Tudball, J.1. The applicant in the present case obtained a decree against the accused persons ex parte. The case was re-heard and the parties came to a compromise on the 24th of February 1911 and according to that compromise, the accused persons gave security for the debt. The security given was a house situate in Patna. The litigation took place in Mirzapur. A deed was executed by the accused persons, under which they hypothecated the house in question, and was duly registered. A year afterwards they sold the property to another person. On these facts, a complaint was filed by the present applicant charging the accused persons with an offence under Section 422, Indian Penal Code. This was done at Mirzapur. An objection was taken that the Mirzapur Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and both the Courts below have sustained that objection. The complainant has come on revision, but it seems to me that it is unnecessary to decide the question of jurisdiction for two reaso...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »