Allahabad Court November 1917 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.
Emperor Vs. Khushali Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All129; (1918)ILR40All116; 43Ind.Cas.436
Knox, J1. I have read the order of the Sessions Judge of Agra, dated the 15th of October, 1917. That order sets out that the Munsif of Fatehabad in the Agra district was of opinion that there was ground for inquiring into offences supposed to have been committed under Sections 467, 471, 193, 209 and 210 of the India penel Code. The offence under Section 467 was alleged to have been committed at Sirajganj in Bengal and the same remark applies to the other offences. The accused was committed for trial to the Court of Session at Agra, the court to which the Munsif of Fatehabad could commit the accused person. The accused pleaded that the court of the Sessions Judge of Agra had no jurisdiction to try the case. The latter Court acting under the provisions of Section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code has asked this Court to decide whether the offence shall be tried by that court or by some court having jurisdiction in the province of Bengal. The learned Counsel who appears for Khushali Ram ...
Lakhan Singh Vs. Ram Kishan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All185; (1918)ILR40All93
Tudball, J.1. In this case the plaintiff brought a suit asking for certain declarations. The suit was partly decreed and partly dismissed. The plaintiff appealed against so much of his claim as was disallowed and he paid a court fee of Rs. 10. The defendant filed no appeal but on receiving notice of the plaintiff's appeal, he filed cross-objections on a stamp of Rs. 2. The taxing clerk made a report to the effect that the cross-objection should bear a court-fee stamp of Rs. 10 just as if the respondent had appealed, apparently applying the analogy of article 17, Schedule II, of the Court Fees Act. The Taxing Officer is doubtful as to the accuracy of this and he has sent the case on to me as Taxing Judge for my decision. He has pointed out that the only place in the Court Fees Act in which cross-objections are mentioned is in Article I, Schedule I, of the Act. Under that article the cross-objection must pay an ad valorem fee according to the value of the subject matter in dispute. Artic...
Lakhan Singh Vs. Ram Kishen Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.179
Tudball, J.1. In this ease the plaintiff brought a suit asking for certain declarations. The suit was partly decreed and partly-dismissed. The plaintiff appealed against so much of his claim as was disallowed and he paid a Court-fee of Rs. 10. The defendant filed no appeal but on receiving notice of the plaintiff's appeal, he filed cross-objections on a stamp of Rs. 2. The taxing clerk made a report to the effect that the cross objection should bear a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 10 just as if the respondent had appealed, apparently applying the analogy of Article 17, Schedule II, of the Court Fees Act. The Taxing Officer is doubtful as to the accuracy of this and he has sent the case on to me as Taxing Judge for my decision. He has pointed out that the only place in the Court Fees Act in which cross-objections are mentioned is in Article 1, Schedule I, of the Act. Under that Article the cross-objector must pay an ad valorem fee according to the value of the subject-matter in dispute. Articl...
Mathura Prasad and anr. Vs. Sheobalak Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All89
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. There was a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, II of 1912. The society got into debt. Its registration was cancelled and a liquidator appointed. There were a number of persons who were members of the society and had received advances. The liquidator took mortgages from each of the debtors for the amount of their liability. He then proceeded to make an order which purported to be under Section 42 (b), determining that each of the debtors should be jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the several debts. This order was sought to be enforced in the Civil Court having local jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 42 (5) (a). The court ordered execution. On appeal to the District Judge the appeal was dismissed. A second appeal has now been preferred to this Court. It is strongly contended on behalf of the appellants that the order of the liquid...
Dambar Singh Vs. Kalyan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All109
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. A suit was brought to realize the amount of a mortgage. The property mortgaged was mortgagee rights. The facts are somewhat complicated, but it is not necessary to mention them in detail. The court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's suit. On first appeal the decision of the court of first instance was overruled and the suit dismissed. On second appeal to the High Court the decree of the first court was restored. In its judgement the High Court says:---'We must allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and restore the decree of the court of first instance with costs in all courts. We extend the time for payment to six months.' The decree of the High Court was drawn up upon one of the High Court's forms. It states that the appeal has been allowed, the decree of the lower appellate court set aside and the decree of the court of first instance restore...
Thakur Damber Singh Vs. Kalyan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All366; 43Ind.Cas.557
1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. A suit was brought to realise the amount of a mortgage. The property mortgaged was mortgagee rights. The facts are somewhat complicated but it is not necessary to mention them in detail. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's suit. On first appeal the decision of the Court of first instance was overruled and the suit dismissed. On second appeal to the High Court the decree of the first Court was restored. In its judgment the High Court says: 'we must allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore the decree of the Court of first instance with costs in all Courts. We extend the time for payment to six months.' The decree of the High Court was drawn up upon one of the High Court's forms. It states that the appeal has been allowed, the decree of the lower Appellate Court set aside and the decree of the Court of first instance restored. It further contains the words 'and it is further ord...
Mathura Prasad and anr. Vs. Sheobalak
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All419; 42Ind.Cas.968
1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. There was a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, II of 1912. The society got into debt. Its registration was cancelled and a liquidator appointed. There were a number of persons who were members of the society and had received advances. The liquidator took mortgages from each of the debtors for the amount of their liability. He then proceeded to make an order, which purported to be made under Section 42 (6), determining that each of the debtors should be jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the several debts. This order was sought to be enforced, in the Civil Court having; local jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 42, (5) (a). The Court: ordered execution. On appeal to the District Judge the appeal was dismissed. A second appeal has now been preferred to this Court. It is strongly contended on behalf of the appellants that the order of the liquidator was bad. It is said that while the l...
Emperor Vs. Manik Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR40All105
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision against the conviction of one Manik Chand, a shop-keeper and cloth-dealer, of the city of Bareilly, on a prosecution instituted against him under the orders of the Municipal Board of that place. It would appear that on the 19th of February a consignment of cloth addressed to Manik Chand reached one of the octroi barriers on the boundary of the aforesaid Municipal area. The officer in charge demanded a larger sum by way of octroi duty than Manik Chand considered was properly leviable under the rules. The matter was referred to the Octroi Superintendent, who assessed the duty at Re. 1-0-9, and it is quite clear that he had power to do this under the rules. The position then became this, that Manik Chand had a right of appeal within sixty days against the decision of the Octroi Superintendent, but that he could only exercise that right by first paying under protest the duty demanded and then appealing within seven days of the date of this p...
Bharath Singh Vs. Tej Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.636
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a-suit brought for the recovery of the share of profits of a co-sharer for the year 1318 Fasli. The plaintiff is the assignee of the profits from the co-sharer, who is the second defendant in the suit. The suit was brought against Kundin Singh, who was the lambardar in the year in question. The plaintiff claimed a share not only of the profits actually realised but also of the profits which, according to him, had not been realised by the lambardar through gross negligence and misconduct. During the pendency of the suit the lambardar died 'and his legal representative, Tej Singh, was brought upon the record. He contended that he was not liable for amounts which his predecessor-in-title, namely Kundan Singh, had neglected to collect. The Court of first instance repelled this contention and made a decree for what it held to be the total amount shown in the rent roll and other sums which had not been shown in the rent roll but which the lambarda...
Dambar Singh Vs. Munawar Ali Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All324(1); (1918)ILR40All86
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. One Sri Kishan had obtained a certain decree. The appellant here obtained another decree against Sri Kishan and attached the decree belonging to Sri Kishan. Sri Kishan was declared an insolvent and his property vested in the official assignee. Notwithstanding the adjudication of Sri Kishan the appellant sought to put into execution the decree belonging to Sri Kishan which he had attached in execution of his decree. The judgement-debtors objected that Dambar Singh was not competent to execute the decree. The court below held that the objection had force and dismissed the application. We think the decision appealed from is correct. The effect of the attachment obtained by the appellant was not to vest in him any property. It gave him, no doubt, the right to execute the attached decree, and had it not been for the insolvency he would still have that right. The insolvency, however, vested all the property of the insolvent in the officia...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »