Allahabad Court May 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.
Raghubir Saran and ors. Vs. Binda Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All440
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an appeal by leave of the court under Section 40, Sub-section (3) of the Provincial Insolvency Act against an order of the District Judge of Meerut, allowing an application presented by the respondents for review of a previous order, whereby the appellant's half-share in a brick-kiln had been released from attachment and declared not to be available as assets for the payment of the debts of one Abdul Haq, who had been declared an insolvent. On the 27th of June, 1914, Abdul Haq applied to be declared an insolvent and named eleven creditors, among whom were the two respondents Raghubir Saran and Badr-ud-din. On August 27th, he was adjudicated an insolvent and on September 24th, the Deputy Nazir of the court was appointed receiver. The receiver attached or took possession of the brick-kiln, whereupon the appellant objected saying that the brick-kiln was his property. He explained that it had been the property of himself and his partner Abdul Haq, and tha...
Binda Prasad Vs. Raghubir Saran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All250; 29Ind.Cas.994
1. This is an appeal by leave of the Court under Section 46, Sub-section (3), of the Provincial Insolvency Act, against an order of the District Judge of Meerut, allowing an application presented by the respondents for review of a previous order, whereby the appellant's half-share in a brick-kiln had been released from attachment and declared not to be available as assets for the payment of the debts of one Abdul Haq, who had been declared an insolvent. On June 27th, 1914, Abdul Haq applied to b 5 declared an insolvent and named eleven creditors, among whom were the two respondents, Raghubir Saran and Badr-ud-din. On August 27th, hs was adjudicated an insolvent and on September 24th, the Deputy Nazir of the Court was appointed Receiver. The Receiver attached or took possession of the brick-kiln, whereupon the appellant objected, saying that the brick-kiln was his property. He explained that it had been the property of himself and his partner Abdul Haq, and that Abdul Haq had on March 2...
Hira Lal and ors. Vs. Saraswati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.480
Chamier, J.1. The applicants have been convicted of air offence under Section 7(a) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1914. Ajudhia Prasad wrote a book in Urdu called 'Translation Guide, Part 1', and had it printed in 1897 by the applicants who are the owners of a press. He also wrote a Translation Guide, Part I, in Hindi but died before he could publish it. His widow, the complainant, had the new work printed and published by the applicants in 1811, Three years later the applicants published another edition of the Translation Guide in Hindi, but suppressed the name of the author and claimed to be the proprietors of it. For the applicants it is contended that the complainant had no copyright in the Hindi work. Copyright' did not formerly include the exclusive right of translation, but the author of a book who made a translation of it was entitled to a copyright in it as if it were an original work. Therefore even if the Hindi book in question is only a translation of the Urdu book, Ajudhia P...
Dhani Sahu Vs. Raj Mahal Kunwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All329; 30Ind.Cas.393
Chamier, J.1. Sheo Dihal made a simple mortgage of a two-annas share in a village in favour of the respondent. Seven years later he made a usufructuary mortgage of nine-pies out of the two-annas shares in favour of the appellant. A few days after this mortgage the mortgagor executed a deed of relinquishment in respect of his ex-proprietary rights in certain plots of land aggregating 18 big has or so. The first mortgagee brought a suit upon her mortgage impleading the second mortgagee. She obtained a decree, brought the property to sale, and purchased it herself. She obtained formal delivery of possession of the entire 2-annas share. But the appellant declined to give up possession of the 18 bighas odd, the ex-proprietary rights in which had been relinquished by the mortgagor. This is a suit for possession of the nine-pies share including the 18 bighas odd. The first Court decreed the claim for the share but dismissed the claim for possession of the plots. On appeal the Additional Distr...
Ram NaraIn Vs. Gobind Pershad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All313; 29Ind.Cas.289
Piggott, J.1. This is an execution first appeal, and the question raised by it is as to the interpretation of a conditional decree for redemption, dated tlie 13th of January 1908, and the effect of an order and decree of this Court, dated August 1st, 1910, disposing of an appeal from the said decree. It is necessary, first of all, to be quite sure what interpretation it would have been necessary to put on the decree of the first Court if it had never been modified in any way by this Court. The suit was for redemption of four mortgages and the mortgagee 'was in possession, of the property. He was entitled under the terms of his mortgages to compound interest at Re. 1 per cent, per mensem, with six-monthly rests, but 'was also liable to account for the profits of ihe mortgaged property in his hands. A reference to the judgment of the first Court makes it clear that the intention of that Court way simply to give effect to the mutual rights and liabilities of the parties under their contra...
Ram Karan Vs. Madhukar Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All327; 29Ind.Cas.469
1. This is a petition for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The appeal to this Court was valued by the appellant at Rs. 200. It was from an order of the District Judge removing him from his post as trustee of certain trust property. The trust property is said to have an annual income of over Rs. 2,300. It is, therefore, clear that the decree or final order involves, directly or indirectly, some claim or question to or respecting property of the value of Rs. 10,000 and over. But there are two other points for decision. The first one is whether the decree against which the applicant seeks to appeal does or does not affirm the decision of the Court below. The appeal to this Court was dismissed for default of prosecution and costs were awarded to the opposite party. A very similar question arose in Beni Rai v. Ram Lakhan Rai 20 A. 367 : A.W.N. (1898) 77.2. In that case it was held that the decree of this Court dismissing an appeal for want of prosecution was a decree affirming the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›