Allahabad Court May 1916 Judgments
The Indian Exchange Bank Vs. Santi Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All537
Piggott and Lindsay, JJ.1. This is a first appeal against an order of the District Judge of Agra passed under the following circumstances. It appears that liquidation proceedings in the matter of the Indian Exchange Bank were pending in the court of the Additional Judge of Lahore under the old Companies Act (Act VI of 1882). The Additional Judge of Lahore passed an order directing one Lachmi Narain as a contributory to pay a sum of Rs. 2,475 towards the funds of the Bank in liquidation. This order was sent down to be executed in the court of the District Judge of Agra. In the liquidation proceedings and in the order which was issued from the court at Lahore, Lachmi Narain was described as being the proprietor of a firm styled Nand Lal Santi Lal. Certain goods were attached by the District Judge of Agra in execution of the order received by him, and on this having been done the present appellant Santi Lal filed an objection in which he stated that he and not Lachmi Narain was the sole p...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Abdur Rahman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All664
Sundar Lal, J.1. This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant tinder Section 366, read with Section 109, of the Indian Penal Code, by the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur. Along with the appellant two other persons, viz., Yusuf and Haidar Bakhsh, were put on their trial under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code; but have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge for reasons given in his judgement. The charge framed against the appellant by the committing Magistrate ran in the following terms, viz.That you on or about the 21st day of October, 1915, at Dehra Dun, instigated Haidar and Yusuf, accused, to kidnap Musammat Khatun in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, which offence was committed in consequence of your abetment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 366/109 of the Indian Penal Code and within the oognizance of the Court of Session.3. Musammat Khatun, whose age has been found to have been under six...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawan and anr. Vs. Madan Mohan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All345; 35Ind.Cas.41
1. This is an appeal by the defendants against an order of remand. The appellants were at one time in possession of a certain plot of land as tenants of one Din Dayal. Din Dayal took proceedings in the Revenue Court to eject them, on the ground that they were tenants-at-will. The Court of first instance, i.e., the Court of the Assistant Collector, dismissed Din Dayal's suit for ejectment. It was decreed on appeal by the Commissioner, and again dismissed on second appeal by the Board of Revenue. In the meantime, however, the zamindar had taken out execution of the Commissioner's decree and had obtained formal possession. After the decision of the Board of Revenue in their favour, the tenants came to the Revenue Court and asked to be restored to possession. It was held that this application, having been made after the prescribed period of limitation, was not maintainable and it was dismissed accordingly. The present plaintiff is the son of Din Dayal. He has brought this suit in the Civil...
Tag this Judgment!Santi Lal Vs. the Indian Exchange Bank Through Rai Sahib Lala Murlidha ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All24; 35Ind.Cas.6
1. This is a first appeal against an order of the District Judge of Agra passed under the following circumstances., It appears that liquidation proceedings in the matter of the Indian Exchange Bank were pending in the Court of the Additional Judge of Lahore. Under the old Companies Act (Act VI of 1882) the Additional Judge of Lahore passed an order directing one Lachmi Narain as a contributory to pay a sum of Rs. 2,475 towards the funds of the Bank in liquidation. This order was sent down to be executed in the Court of the District Judge of Agra. In the liquidation proceedings and in the order which was issued from the Court at Lahore, Lachmi Narain was described as being the proprietor of a firm styled Nand Lal-Santi Lal. Certain goods were attached by the District Judge pf Agra in execution of the order received by him and on this having been done, the present appellant Santi Lal filed an objection in which he stated that he and not Lachmi Narain was the sole proprietor of the firm i...
Tag this Judgment!Dharamdeo Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All49; 35Ind.Cas.978
Walsh, J.1. In this case I see no ground for interference. It is another of those unfortunate agricultural disputes which are only too frequent. The applicants were cutting either properly or improperly, probably improperly, a sugar-cane crop, and the men who apparently had the right to interfere, or at any rate claimed the right to interfere, called upon them to stop. They might have stopped or they might have remonstrated, but they did a great deal more. They attacked them with lathis and inflicted in one case grievous hurt and in another case simple hurt. There was a considerable volume of evidence of eye-witnesses which the Magistrate has accepted. It is a clear case of unlawful assembly attended by force and violence amounting to riot under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. If all the parties had been sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment, nobody could have said that 'they were too severely punished. They were, however, sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdur Rahman Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All210; 36Ind.Cas.466
Sunder Lal, J.1. This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under Section 366/109 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur. Along with the appellant two other persons, viz., Yusuf and Haidar Baksh were put on their trial under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, but, have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge for reasons given in his judgment. The charge framed against the appellant by the Committing Magistrate ran in the following terms, viz.That you on or about the 21st day of October 1915 at Dohra Dun instigated Haidar and Yusuf accused to kidnap Musammat Khatun in order that she may be forced or seducod to illicit intercourse, which offence was committed in consequence of your abetment, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 366/109 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Session.2. Musammat Khatun, whose age has been found to have been under 16 years, was, as found by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jafar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All253(2); 36Ind.Cas.577
Sunder Lal, J.1. The appellant Jafar was found selling some spices in the bazar by two chaukidars, who suspected him of possessing stolen property and of attempting to dispose of the same. He was arrested by them and was being taken to the Police station when certain persons rescued him from the custody of the chaukidars. He has been charged under Section 224 as also under Section 333/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The first point for consideration is whether the chaukidars had any authority to arrest him. The learned Judge has found that, these chaukidirs were acting under Section 52 of Act XX of 1856. That Act was repealed by Section 41 of Local Council Act, II of 1914 (the United Provinces Town Areas Act). Act XX of 1856 is no longer in force in these Provinces, and the Town Areas Act contains no provision similar to that contained in Section 52 of Act XX of 1856. The chauhkidars, therefore, did not belong to the Police force and had no authority to arrest the appellant on mere suspic...
Tag this Judgment!Ram NaraIn Vs. Bhoj Raj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All530
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The first court decreed the claim, the lower appellate court modified the decree. The defendant vendee has appealed. It appears that as far back as the year 1873, the property was mortgaged with possession to the vendee. On the 19th of October, 1911, the mortgagor sold his equity of redemption to the vendee defendant for the sum of Rs. 8,000. This sum of Rs. 8,000 was made up of Rs. 3,000, the original money advanced on the mortgage and Rs. 5,000, Government revenue which the vendee said he had paid in respect of the property. The mortgage-deed contained a clause that the mortgagor would pay the Government revenue, and that if he failed to do so, then the mortgagee should be entitled to recover the sum from the mortgagor and his other property together with interest at the rate of one per cent, per mensem. Both courts have found that as a matter of fact the mortgagee had to pay and did pay t...
Tag this Judgment!Tej Bali Singh Vs. Baijnath Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All590
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal relates to the right to possession of a very valuable estate in Mirzapur, referred to in the plaint as the Aghori-Barhar Raj. The last male owner was Raja Kesho Saran Shah. The Raja died on the 4th of March, 1871, leaving no issue, but a young Rani, Red Saran Kunwari, him surviving. The Rani lived until 1913, when she died. A glance at the pedigree filed with the plaint will show that the plaintiff is the eldest son of Babu Jagannath Prasad. This gentleman survived the late Raja but died before the Rani on the 14th of October, 1910. Defendant No. 1, Babu Baijnath Prasad, is the rival claimant to the raj. He was a brother, next in seniority to Babu Jagannath Prasad aforesaid, father of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 is a younger brother of defendant No. 1. In the plaint it is alleged that the Rani had made or attempted to make large gifts at the expense of the estate to one Pandit Banarsi Misir, a Brahman; that she had tried to get the consent of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoj Raj Vs. Ram Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All85; 35Ind.Cas.915
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The first Court decreed the claim, the lower Appellate Court modified the decree. The defendant-vendee has appealed.2. It appears that as far back as the year 1873 the property was mortgaged with possession to the vendee. On the 19th of October 1911, the mortgagor sold his equity of redemption to the vendee-defendant for the sum of Rs. 8,000. This sum of Rs. 8,000 was made up of Rs. 3,000, the original money advanced on the mortgage, and Rs. 5,000 Government revenue which the vendee said he had paid in respect of the property. The mortgage-deed contained a clause that the mortgagor would pay the Government revenue and that if he failed to do so, then the mortgagee should be entitled to recover the sum from the mortgagor and his other property together with interest at the rate of one per cent, per mensem. Both Courts have found that as a matter of fact the mortgagee had to pay and did pay the Government revenue. The question which we...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »