Allahabad Court February 1915 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.
Ganges Sugar Works Ld. Vs. Nuri Miah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All284; (1915)ILR37All273
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Benerji, J.1. The facts connected with the case out of which this appeal arises are shortly as follows. The plaintiff company entered into a contract with the defendant in connection with the working of a certain portion of the company's property or business. One clause of this contract was that in the event of disputes or differences arising they should be referred to the arbitration of a gentleman named Hazari Lal, and that his decision should be binding and conclusive between the parties. This contract was not under seal. Disputes having arisen, the company made an application under Schedule II, Rule 17, of the Code of Civil Procedure to file the contract as a submission to arbitration in order that the matter should be settled in accordance with the provisions of the Code. This application - was refused by the court below on the sole ground that the cont-3 ract which contained the submission to arbitration was not under the seal of the compan...
Kishori Lal and ors. Vs. Rang Lal Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All278
Tudball and Rafiq, JJ.1. This is a second appeal by the judgement-debtors. An occupancy holding was usufructuarily mortgaged on the 25th of January, 1900,to one Dwarka Prasad, whose interest has now devolved upon the present decree-holders, Kishori Lal, &c.; Possession was not given to the mortgagee, who brought a suit in which he sought in the alternative either to recover his money or get possession of the property. On the 6th of June, 1912, a decree for possession was awarded to the mortgagee, as such. An. objection was taken in the course of the suit by the defendants that the transfer was illegal and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to possession. The court decided in favour of the mortgagee, holding that the mortgage was valid and that the plaintiffs as such were entitled to possession and accordingly it gave a decree for possession. Having obtained the decree execution was sought, and again the judgement-debtors came forward and pleaded that possession could not be given to...
Rang Lal Kuar and ors. Vs. Kishori Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All57; 28Ind.Cas.278
1. This is a second appeal by the judgment-debtors. An occupancy holding was usufructuarily mortgaged on January 25th, 1900, to one Dwarka Prasad whose interest has now devolved upon the present decree holders, Kishori Lal, etc. Possession was not given to the mortgagee, who brought a suit in which he sought in the alternative either to recover his money or got possession of the property. On June 6th, 1912, a decree for possession was awarded to the mortgagee as such. An objection was taken in the course of the suit by the defendants that the transfer was illegal and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to possession. The Court decided in favour of the mortgagee, holding that mortgage was valid and that the plaintiffs as such were entitled to possession and accordingly it gave a decree for possession. Having obtained the decree execution was sought and again the judgment-debtors came forward and pleaded that possession could not be given to the decree-holders in execution of the decre...
ibrahimji Vs. HasanuddIn Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All231; 28Ind.Cas.381
1. The decree in the present case was obtained on November 30th, 1908. The first application for execution was made on February, 17th 1909. It was dismissed for default of prosecution. On March 11th, 1910, a second application was made by the decree-holder for execution by arrest of the judgment-debtor. Thereupon the judgment-debtor applied to the District Judge to be declared an insolvent. In the course of the insolvency proceedings on May 14th, 1910, the Pleader for the decree-holder, who was one of the creditors, stated that if the judgment-debtor would withdraw his application in insolvency he would guarantee not to apply for his arrest in execution of his decree for a period of two years. To this the judgment-debtor consented and the District Judge struck off the application for insolvency. This was 14th May 14th, 1910. The execution application of March 11th, 1910, was still pending and on May 18th, 1910, the decree-holder's Pleader again attended Court and the Munsif directed th...
The Ganges Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Nuri Miah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.384
1. The facts connected with the case out of which this appeal arises are shortly as follow. The plaintiff Company entered into a contract with the defendant in connection with the working of a certain portion of the Company's property or business. One clause of this contract was that in the event of disputes or differences arising, they should be referred to the arbitration of a gentleman named Hazari Lal, and that his decision should be binding and conclusive between the parties. This contract was not under seal. Disputes having arisen the Company made an application under Schedule 11, Rule 17, of the Code of Civil Procedure to file the contract as a submission to arbitration in order that the matter should be settled in accordance with the provisions of the Code. This application was refused by the Court below on the sole ground that the contract which contained the submission to arbitration was not under the seal of the Company. At present we have nothing to do with the merits of th...
Thakur Mordhaj Singh Vs. Jahangiri Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.428
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings taken to execute a decree for sale passed in a suit upon two mortgages dated June 18th 1888 and August 18th 1894. The earlier mortgage comprised 5 biswas of a village called Partaul and 5 biswansis of a village called Nausana. The later mortgage was of a 2 biswas-share in Partauli and a 5 biswansis-share in Nausana. In the suit on the mortgages it was held that the same 5 biswansis-share in Nausana was covered by both mortgages, but that of the 2 biswas-share in Partauli covered by the second mortgage, only 1 biswa 12 biswansis 16 kachwansis were included in the 5 biswas-share mortgaged by the first deed, and the remaining 7 biswanis 4 kachwansis were outside the 5 biswas-share. The Court passed a peculiar decree, which provided that the shares included in the first mortgage should be sold separately for the recovery of Rs. 1,876-4-0 declared to be due on that mortgage and that if there was a balance after discharging that amount then the whole ...
Dumi Chand Vs. Arja Nand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All272
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Additional Judge of Saharanpur, dismissing the appellant's application to be made plaintiff in the suit in the place of Nihal Singh deceased, the original plaintiff. The defendants respondents contend that no appeal lies. In our opinion the contention is well founded. It is not suggested that the order amounts to a decree as defined in the Code. As an order it is certainly not appealable, for it was not passed under either Rule 9 or Rule 10 of Order XXII. We were asked to treat the appeal as an application for revision. We are not prepared to do this. The court below does not appear to have acted without jurisdiction or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Moreover, Nihal Singh left a widow, who appears to be his legal representative, if the appellant is not the adopted son, and who may yet succeed in getting herself made plaintiff in place of her deceased husband. It may also be possible to...
Duni Chand Vs. Arja Nand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All158; 28Ind.Cas.687
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Additional Judge of Saharanpur, dismissing the appellant's application to be made plaintiff in the place of Nihal Singh deceased, the original plaintiff. The defendants-respondents contend that no appeal lies. In our opinion the contention is well founded. It is not suggested that the order amounts to a decree as defined in the Code. As an order it is certainly not appealable, for it was not passed under either Rule 9 or Rule 10 of Order XXII. We were asked to treat the appeal as an application for revision. We are not prepared to do this. The Court below does not appear to have acted without jurisdiction or irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Moreover Nihal Singh left a widow who appears to be his legal representative, if the appellant is not the adopted son, and who may yet succeed in getting herself made plaintiff in place of her deceased husband. It may also be possible to appeal against the order of the Court when passed, ...
Manorath Choube and ors. Vs. Musammat Sumera and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All170; 28Ind.Cas.454
1. This was a suit for possession of a certain zemindari share, with regard to which it is sufficient to say that it was made up of shares which had at one times belonged to two brothers named Bhola and Ram Harak. The suit was contested on somewhat different grounds by two sots of defendants and the pleadings raised a number of issues of fads and law. At a late stage of Hits trial in the Court of first instance, a special plea was put in to the effect that the suit as brought was barred by Section 233 of the Land Revenue Act (Local Act III of 1901). An issue haying been framed on this point, the learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the suit was so barred, and he dismissed it accordingly. On appeal the lower Appellate Court, following oat a train of reasoning which we do not think it necessary to describe in detail, came to the conclusion that the suit was barred by the aforesaid section in so far as it related to the share which had been Ram Harak's, but not barred in respect of...
Diwan and ors. Vs. Buddhu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All267
Henry Richards, C.J.1. The facts connected with this appeal are fully reported see 12 A.L.J. 837. It appears that a suit was brought before the Additional Subordinate Judge claiming damages for malicious prosecution. The suit was decreed in part on the 2nd of December, 1912. Copies of the decree and Judgment were delivered to the defendant on the 10th of December, The defendant had up to the 3rd of January, 1913, to appeal to the District Judge. No appeal was filed until thirty-seven days after that date. An application was then made to admit the appeal though late. The appeal was admitted. The only fact that the learned District Judge had before him when admitting the appeal was set forth in an affidavit in which it was stated that instructions had been given to Mr. Weston, a barrister, together with a sum of Rs. 40, for the purpose of filing an appeal. No affidavit of Mr. Weston was filed. No explanation was given why Mr. Weston did not file the appeal. Nor was it even alleged that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »