Allahabad Court November 1916 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.
Ladu Ram and anr. Vs. Mahabir Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All280; (1917)ILR39All171; 37Ind.Cas.996
1. In our opinion this preliminary objection must prevail. The respondent has been adjudicated an insolvent. No Receiver has been appointed. The rights of the Receiver must, therefore, under Section 23 be exercised by the Court. The present appellant by an application of the 22nd of November 1915, brought to the notice of the Court allegations said to constitute an offence under Section 43, sub-Section (2). It is to be observed that the offences dealt with under that Section are in the nature of disciplinary offences, that is to say offences committed by the insolvent during the insolvency in the nature of breaches of duty to the Court and not offences against the general criminal law. The Insolvency Court on the 19th of April 1916, decided that there was no case. The present appellant claims to have a right of appeal as being a person described by Section 46, Sub-Section (2), as 'a person aggrieved by an order made by the District Court under Section 43, Sub-Section (2).' He can only ...
Kallyan Singh Vs. Kanhiya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All893(1); 40Ind.Cas.110
1. The value of the subject-matter of the suit and of the proposed appeal to His Majesty in Council is less than Rs. 10,000. Furthermore this Court confirmed the decision of the Court of first instance. The case prima facie does not comply with the requirements of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We are, however, asked to certify that the case is 'otherwise a fit one' for appeal on the ground that a substantial question of law is involved. The question of law, if any, is the construction of a Will as to whether the person to whom the property was bequeathed took it 'as an adopted' son and on that condition, or that he was entitled to the property under the terms of the Will irrespective whether he was adopted or not, It is difficult to say that the construction of any particular document is a substantial question of law, that is, a question of law of general public importance. No doubt some portions of the Will closely resembled the terms of a Will which was considered by th...
Rangpal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All85; 40Ind.Cas.314
George Knox, J.1. This appeal is presented by nine persons who have been convicted of offences under Section 147 and Section 333 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code; for the offence of riot, they have each of them been sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment, and for the offence under Section 333 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced each of them to two years' rigorous imprisonment. The sentences are by the order to run concurrently. The facts found by the learned Sessions Judge with the concurrence of the assessors are as follows:-Two persons Raj. Man and Bisheshar for whose arrest warrants were out were arrested by the Police and were on their way to the Police Station. Saran, one of he convict appellants, raised an alarm to the effect that his sons were being removed by the Police and called for a rescue party. Some 50 people more or less assembled armed with lathis and surrounded the Police. Under Saran's directions an assault was committe...
Salimullah Vs. Birjhan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All95(1); 37Ind.Cas.639
George Knox, J.1. It appears from the papers before me that Salimullah applicant on 30th June 1916 filed a complaint before a Magistrate of the first class at Ballia. The Magistrate appears to have put the complaint into his kuteheri box and to have passed no order upon it until the 17th of August 1916. I have in previous cases commented strongly upon such conduct on the part of Magistrates and I am surprised to find a Magistrate of the first class acting in this way. , Magistrates have no right whatever to keep complaints instituted before them without order, as the learned Magistrate did in this case. Such action is in the highest degree improper and shows want of proper understanding as to what their duties are. The complainant came here on the 21st 6f September and filed an application against the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code Criminal Procedure. The first two group taken in the application are not entitled weight. If the Magistrate ...
Raghubar Dayal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All394; 38Ind.Cas.995
George Knox, J.1. This is an application for criminal revision. It is presented by learned Counsel on behalf of Raghubar Dayal and Pearey Lal, who have been convicted of offences under Section 147 and Section 323 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. The grounds taken in the application are (1) that the charge framed defined the common object of the unlawful assembly to be the taking forcible possession of Musammat Piari prostitute; (2) that this charge has been disproved by the evidence upon the record, both prosecution and defence; (3) that the evidence upon the record proves and it has been found as a fact that the complainants made an attempt to take forcible possession of Musammat Piari, which she was under the law entitled to resist quite irrespective of the provisions of Clause 3 of Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code; (4) that Musammat Piari was entitled to resist ths attempt and her friends also were legally entitled to help her in her resistance, irrespective of the provi...
Babu Ram Prasad Vs. the Collector of Aligarh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All52; 40Ind.Cas.274
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. The present appellant was one of several claimants. Notice was duly issued to him under Section 9 of the Act. The Collector made an award and he asked for a reference to the District Court. The reference was made. The property whish is in dispute before us consists of a plot of land on which there were certain buildings. Compensation was awarded by the Collector for the land at a certain rate per yard and for the building in a lump sum. The appellant claimed before the District Judge a much enhanced value both for the land and the buildings. In so far as the buildings are concerned, the District Judge held that as the appellant had not put in a claim before the Collector in accordance with Section 9 of the Act, he under Section 25 of the said Act was not empowered to grant any sum greater than that allowed by the Collector, In regard to land the District Judge increased the rate to Rs. 1-80 per yard and enhanced t...
Kuer Nehal Singh and anr. Vs. Lala Sewa Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All112; 40Ind.Cas.128
Walsh, J.1. This is by no means a simple matter, having regard to what has previously happened in the history of the case. The circumstances out of which the suit arises appear in every judgment on the record (I think this is the fifth judgment in the case), and need not be reiterated. When the case was last before my brother Mr. Justice Sunder Lal, as he then was, and myself, certain issues were sent down to the lower Appellate Court. The result of the findings is that the District Judge has held that the plaintiff had no contract with defendant No. 2 and that defendant No. 1 only received notice of a contract, if there was one, during the registration proceedings.2. Either of these findings, if they are sound, would be fatal to the plaintiff's case.3. The second is clearly untenable. The point is covered by authority, and we have no alternative but to hold that the notice was sufficient to render defendant No. 1 liable under Section 27, Sub-section (b) of the Specific Relief Act, if ...
Parbhu Dayal and anr. Vs. Kamta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All165
Walsh and Stuart, JJ.1. In this case four issues were framed. The Munsif decided the first issue in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. Now the first issue was an issue which if decided in favour of the defendants, finally disposed of the suit. If on the other hand it was decided in favour of the plaintiffs, it left other issues undetermined, and the suit therefore came up to the appellate court in the condition that if the first issue was wrongly decided, the remaining issues had not been decided at all, and it was necessary to decide them. Having regard to the previous decisions in this Court and particularly to the decision in Mata Din v. Jamna Das (1905) I.L.R. 27 All. 691, we think that that was a preliminary point within the meaning of Order XLI, Rule 23. It is important that on these questions of practice the decisions of the Court should be consistent. We think therefore that the case was a proper one for remand under that order. We are not disposing of the suit wh...
Kameshar Dayal Vs. Misri Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All397(1); 40Ind.Cas.336
1. In this case we are pf opinion that there is no right of appeal. The order complained of is an order, dated the 14th of December 1915, refusing to restore an application which had already been dismissed on the 26th of November, which application was to set aside an appellate decree of the 21st of August. We are of opinion that although the Court below might, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, as we said yesterday, restore the application, there is no appeal against its refusal, but following what we said yesterday, if we were satisfied that there is reason to think that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice, we might have admitted the case as a revision and allowed it to be argued on that footing. We are not satisfied for many reasons that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and it is sufficient to say that the absence of the party now applying from the application of the 26th of November, which was the reason for its refusal, is to this moment unexplained....
Kamta and ors. Vs. Parbhu Dayal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All243(1); 37Ind.Cas.383
1. In this case four issues were framed. The Munsif decided the first issue in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. Now the first issue was an issue which, if decided in favour of the defendants, finally disposed of the suit. If on the other hand it was decided in favour of the plaintiffs, it left other issues undetermined, and the suit, therefore, came up to the Appellate Court in the condition that if the first issue was wrongly decided, the remaining issues had not been decided at all, and it was necessary to decide them.' Having regard to the previous deoisionsiu this Court and particularly to the decision in Mata Din v. Jamna Das (1), we think that that was a preliminary point within the meaning of Order XLI, Rule 23. Jt is most import: ant that on these questi ns of practice the decisions of the Court should be consistent. 'We think, therefore, that the case was a proper one for remand under that order. A further point has been suggested that the Appellate Court impro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »