Allahabad Court February 1916 Judgments
Jagannath Prasad Vs. the U.P. Flour and Oil Mills Company Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All317; (1916)ILR38All347
Piggott and Walsh, J.1. In our opinion this appeal must be dismissed. A question of principle has been raised apparently for the first time in this Court, namely as to whether an unpaid call, due from a share-holder of a company, which has become statute-barred under Article 112 of the Limitation Act, and has therefore ceased to be a recoverable debt by the company, may yet be recovered if at any date subsequent to its having become time-barred the company is wound-up. That question really depends upon the nature of the liability of a contributory and the provisions of the Indian Companies Act relating to winding-up. We entirely agree with the contention put forward by the appellant's counsel that so far as the recovery of the original debt based upon calls made by the company which has become time-barred is concerned, the liquidator has no higher right than the company. The company could not sue for these calls, no more can the liquidator. But the proceeding before us, as has been poi...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Prasad Vs. U.P. Flour and Oil Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.159
Walsh, J.1. In our opinion this appeal must be dismissed. A question of principle has been raised apparently for the first time in this Court, namely as to whether an unpaid call, due from a share-holder of a company, which has become statute-barred under Article 112 of the Limitation Act and has, therefore, ceased to be a recoverable debt by the company, may yet be recovered if at any date subsequent to its having become time-barred the company is wound up. That question really depends upon the nature of the liability of a contributory and the provisions of the Indian Companies Act relating to winding up. We entirely agree with the contention put forward by the appellant's Counsel that so far as the recovery of the original debt based upon calls made by the company which has become time-barred is concerned, the liquidator has no higher right than the company. The company could not sue for these calls, no more can the liquidator. But the proceeding before us, as has been pointed out by...
Tag this Judgment!Bohra Phul Chand and anr. Vs. Roshan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All278; 36Ind.Cas.703
1. This appeal arises out of, a suit brought by the plaintiffs on the basis of three mortgages dated respectively the 1st of March 1877, the 5th of July 1878, and the 15th of September 1881. The first two mortgages were in favour of Nand Ram, and Jogini Das, the third was in favour of Jogini Das and Musammat Ram Kunwar, Nand Ram and Bhawani Das were brothers being the sons of Behari Lal. Jogini Das is the son of Bhawani Das; Nand Ram's widow was Musammat Ram Kunwar, Nand Ram left a son Ram Dal, whose adopted son is Lachhmi Narayan. Musammat Isa is the widow of Ram Lal, The plaintiffs alleged that the family of Nand Ram and Jogini. Das was joint, that under a partition which subsequently took place between the members of the family the three bonds in suit, were allotted to the share of Jogini Das and, that Jogini Das sold them to the plaintiffs on the 15th of January 1908. It appears that there were two prior mortgages of the 18th of May 1876 executed by the mortgagor Mohan Lal in favou...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Devi Vs. Digbijai Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All322
Piggott, J.1. In this case the plaintiff and the defendant are both co-sharers in a certain mahai and the defendant is the recorded lambardar of the same. The plaintiff brought the present suit in the Civil Court, alleging that the defendant had during the years in suit realized certain moneys on behalf of himself and of the plaintiff, in respect of which the latter claimed his share. The moneys in question are described as being rents of certain shops and houses, market dues and ground rents paid in connection with a market. Apart from his defence on the merits, the defendant pleaded that these realizations had been made by him in his capacity of lambardar of the mahal, and that the only form of suit which could be brought against him would be a suit under Section 164 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Local Act II of 1901). He also pleaded that a suit under, provisions of the Tenancy Act had already been brought against him as lambardar in the Revenue Court, and that of the claim now put forwa...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Vs. Islamun-nissa Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All339
Piggott and Walsh, J.1. In this case an application was made to the Subordinate Judge, by the judgement-debtors under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, complaining of a seizure of immovable property belonging to them, made by the decree-holders in excess of their rights under the decree. The Subordinate Judge, after an elaborate inquiry, has found as a fact that the decree-holders took advantage of some ambiguous language in the decree, and deliberately and dishonestly seized more than their decree entitled them to seize.2. The decree was dated the 31st of March, 1911. The improper seizure took place on the 19th of November, 1911. The application in question was made to the Subordinate Judge on the 7th of July, 1913. This delay of nineteen months was due to the judgement-debtors having mistaken their rights and wasted time over a fruitless application. The reason, however, for the delay is immaterial. The delay itself has given rise to the question we have to decide.3. The improp...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Vs. Musammat Islamunnissa Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All104; 34Ind.Cas.231
Walsh, J.1. In this case an application was made to the Subordinate Judge by the judgment-debtors under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, complaining of a seizure of immoveable property belonging to them, made by the decree-holders in excess of their rights under the decree. The Subordinate Judge, after an elaborate inquiry, has found as a fact that the decree-holders took advantage of some ambiguous language in the decree, and deliberately and dishonestly seized more than their decree entitled them to seize.2. The decree was dated the 31st March 1911. The improper seizure took place on the 19th November 1911. The application in question was made to the Subordinate Judge on the 7th July 1913. This delay of nineteen months was due to the judgment-debtors having mistaken their rights and wasted time over a fruitless application. The reason, however, for the delay is immaterial. The delay itself has given rise to the question we have to decide.3. The improper seizure by the decree-h...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Digbijai Singh Vs. Hira Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All154; 34Ind.Cas.276
Piggott, J.1. In this case the plaintiff and the defendant are both co-sharers in a certain mahal and the defendant is the recorded lambardar of the same. The plaintiff brought the present suit in the Civil Court, alleging that the defendant had during the years in suit realized certain moneys on behalf of himself and of the plaintiff, in respect of which the latter claimed his share. The moneys in question are described as being rents of certain shops and houses, market dues and ground rents paid in connection with a market. Apart from his defence on the merits, the defendant pleaded that these realizations had been made by him in his capacity of lambardar of the mahal, and that the only form of suit which could be brought against him would be a suit under Section 164 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Local Act II of 1901). He also pleaded that a suit under the provisions of the Tenancy Act had already been brought against him as lambardar in the2. Revenue Court, and that, of the claim now put...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All169; 36Ind.Cas.479
Geore Knox, J.1. Mahabir Singh has been convicted of an offence under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 164 of Act VI of 1901. No attempt was made on his behalf so far as the offence under Section 342 is concerned. The whole effort made by the learned Counsel who appeared on his behalf was to show that the conviction under Section 164 of Act VI of 1901 was illegal. It was contended (1) that Mahabir Singh had committed no act which would bring him under Section 164 of Act VI of 1901,(2) that separate convictions under Section 342 and under Section 164 of Act VI 1901 for the same offence were contrary to law.2. Mahabir Singh is in no way licensed under Act VI of 1901; he is a person entirely outside the Act so far as any license or authority is concerned.3. The idea set out is that if he committed any act at all it. was the act of financing Ram Lakhan or other licensed recruiters. Under the Act such financing is not forbidden by law and no conviction can lie for it. ...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Deo Tiwari and anr. Vs. Baijnath Rai and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All315
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by the principal defendant in a suit against an order passed by the District Judge of Ghazipur under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 28, of the Code of Civil Procedure. It arises out of the following facts and circumstances. In the year 1886 one Bhondu joined with his brother in the execution of a mortgage-deed hypothecating certain immovable property. Bhondu was the head and manager of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his sons. In the year 1898 a suit was brought on this mortgage in which, not only the original mortgagors were impleaded, but also the three sons of Bhondu. Of these three sons, one, Raj Narain, was major at the time, while the other two were minors. On the 30th of July, 1898, an application was made to the court to appoint Bhondu guardian ad litem for his two minor sons. Notice was issued to Bhondu, but no reply was received from him, nor did he put in any appearance in the suit. The court, however, on the 30th of August, ...
Tag this Judgment!Himmat Bahadur and anr. Vs. Dhanpat Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All481; (1916)ILR38All335; 35Ind.Cas.148
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of landed property consisting of a 20 biswas zamindari share in mauza Barsua, mahal Dhanpat Rai, One Duli Chand left two sons, Munshi Nitya Nand and Munshi Bechai Lal. We are not concerned with the branch of Munshi Bechai Lal, Munshi Nitya Nand died in the year 1878, leaving him surviving a widow Musammat Mullo and two daughters Musammat Saraswati and Musammat Naraini. Musammat Naraini was married to the defendant Dhanpat Rai. She died in the year 1889, in the life-time of her mother. Musammat Saraswati died on the 25th of November, 1902, leaving her surviving two sons who are the plaintiffs in the present suit. Musammat Mullo, after the death of her husband, executed a deed on the 13th of December, 1880, by which she gave a 21/2 biswas zamindari share in this mauza to her two daughters in equal shares. It is said (and probably correctly said) that she gave in a similar way other property to e...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »