Allahabad Court February 1913 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.
Chaini Ram and anr. Vs. Hannu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.729
1. This is an appeal against an order declaring certain persons, Shambhu Nath and his son Badri Nath, to be insolvents. The application to the Court below was made by a creditor named Hannu on the 15th of January 1912 and the 11th of May was fixed. On that date, Parmanand, one of the creditors, asked for time as he had received the summons only on 10th of May. Some of the creditors had not been served. ON the 11th of May, certain other creditors also asked for adjournment in order that the account books of the insolvents might be brought into Court. On the 22nd of June, the present appellants asked for more time to enable the account books to be brought in Court. From the 11th of May to the 22nd of June, they had made no attempt whatsoever to bring those books in Court, although they had full knowledge as to their whereabouts. The lower Court refused to adjourn the case. The insolvent, Shambhu Nath, was examined. He stated that he was unable to pay his debts and had actually compounded...
G.J. Bower Vs. Imperial Bank Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All177
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of the court below passed under the following circumstances. The respondent Bank is being wound up. The appellant is one of the contributories. The winding up is in the court of the Additional District Judge of Aligarh, where, it appears, the appellant took an objection on the ground that the decree passed against him in favour of the Bank was time-barred. The objection was disallowed. The decree-holders applied to enforce the order of the court under Section 167 of the Companies Act and the matter went to the court of the Second Additional Judge of Meerut. There the appellant raised further objections as well as the objection as to limitation; but they were disallowed. The appellant has come up in appeal to this Court.2. A preliminary objection is taken that notice under Section 169 of the Act has not been given and that therefore the appeal cannot be heard. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the order which h...
Hazari Lal Vs. Ganga Charan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.525
1. This appeal arises out of the following circumstances: The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit against the present appellant in the Court of the Munsif. The case was submitted to arbitration and on the 22nd of January 1912, the arbitrator filed his award in Court. On the 2nd of February 1912, the plaintiff filed objections to the award. The Munsif, although the objections had been filed beyond time, for reasons which it is unnecessary to discuss, set aside the award and proceeded to hear the suit. Certain account books were produced by the plaintiff and he was ordered to file copies of the relevant entries. He failed to do so and the Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground of default. The plaintiff appealed and the lower Appellate Court passed an order on the 22nd of June decreeing the appeal and remanding the suit conditional on the plaintiff paying to the defendant a sum of Rs. 10 as compensation. Apparently, the Court thought that the plaintiff should have further opportunity of ...
imam Baksh Vs. Musammat Anwari Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.718
1. The plaintiff in this suit sought redemption of a usufructuary mortgage executed by her in favour of the defendant on the 26th of August 1892. One of the defences to the suit was that before the plaintiff is permitted to redeem the mortgage in suit, she should be obliged to redeem a simple mortgage, dated the 23rd August 1892, also in favour of the defendant. The Court of first instance gave effect to this plea and in decreeing the suit directed the plaintiff to redeem the earlier mortgage. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal and set aside that part of the order of the first Court directing payment of the earlier mortgage. The lower Appellate Court was of opinion that there was nothing in both the deeds to justify the mortgagee in insisting on payment of the money due on the earlier mortgage of the 23rd August 1892 before redemption of the mortgage now in suit. In second appeal to this Court, it is contended that the view taken by the lower Appellate ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›