Allahabad Court December 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.
Narsingh Das Vs. Chunni Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All341
Knox, Pramada Charan Banerji, Tudball, Muhammad Rafiq and Walsh, JJ.1. This second appeal arises out of a civil action for damages for defamation, the facts of which are briefly as follows:The defendant, who is the appellant before us, was prosecuted in a Criminal Court for an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The plaintiff, who is a pleader, appeared to defend him. The court allowed bail and the plaintiff stood surety for the defendant to the extent of Rs. 100. Not being sure of his client, however, he asked the Court to allow Rs. 100 to be deposited in cash. The prayer was granted. The defendant produced the cash, giving it to the plaintiff, and it was actually deposited on the same date, the 22nd of August, 1913, in the Sub-Treasury at Shikohabad. There was some error in the usual procedure for the depositing of money and the full number of acknowledgements was not issued.2. On the 4th of September, 1913, the case was heard and the defendant acquitted. On that date...
Ram Sahai Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All329; 43Ind.Cas.617
Tudball, J.1. The facts of this case have one peculiarity about them. Briefly stated they are as follows: There was a lambardari case pending in appeal in the Court of the Collector of Firrukhabad. The present applicant Ram Sahai had been appointed by a Subordinate Court as lambardar and the opposite party had appealed against the order. The opposite party pleaded that Ram Sahai was in debt that his estate was burdened and that he should not be appointed. He pleaded that he had paid up a considerable part of the debt and in order to establish it he produced a receipt for Rs. 450, dated the 20th of December 1911 and bearing on it a one anna postage stamp which bore the effigy of King George V. The Collector came to the conclusion that this receipt was not genuine, on the ground that the stamp which was affixed to it was not obtainable in the district on the 20th of December 1911. Ram Sahai explained that the stamp had been affixed to the receipt a year after the execution of the documen...
The Ganges Flour Mills Company, Ltd. Vs. Shadi Ram (Auction-purchaser) ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All384(1); 43Ind.Cas.656
1. In this case an order had been obtained from the High Court ex parte, staying an execution sale which was to take place on the 10th of April 1917 for a period of fourteen days. The order was obtained from this Court on the 5th of April 1917. The sale in fact took place on the 10th of April, the day fixed for the sale. It was conducted by an auctioneer, who admittedly was justified in proceeding with the sale so far as he was concerned. He had got no proper intimation that this Court had postponed the sale. Even the Judge himself, under whose order the sale was held, did not know of the order of this Court until after the time advertised for the sale. When the copy of the order of this' Court was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge the sale was actually taking place. The order which was obtained from this Court on the 5th of April was subsequently set aside by the same learned Judge who made the order, on the ground that the order had been obtained from him by fraud, misrepre...
Chunni Lal Vs. Narsingh Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All69; 45Ind.Cas.540
1. This second appeal arises out of a civil action for damages for defamation, the facts of which are briefly as follows:2. The defendant, who is the appellant before us, was prosecuted in a Criminal Court for an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The plaintiff, who is a Pleader, appeared to defend him. The Court allowed bail and the plaintiff stood surety for the defendant to the extent of Rs. 100. Not being sure of his client, however, he asked the Court to allow Rs. 100 to be deposited in cash. The prayer was granted. The defendant produced the cash giving it to the plaintiff and it was actually deposited on the same date, August 22nd, 1913, in the Sub-Treasury at Shikohabad. There was some error in the usual procedure for the depositing of money and the full number of acknowledgments was not issued.3. On the 4th September 1913 the case was heard and the defendant acquitted. On that date, however, he employed another Pleader; on 17th September 1913 he filed a petiti...
Drig Pal Singh Vs. Kunjal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All222; 44Ind.Cas.689
Rafique, J.1. This is an application in revision from the order of the Small Cause Court at Fatehpur returning the plaint to be presented to the proper Court, It appears that the plaintiff-applicant sued to recover mesne profits of a grove from which he said he had been wrongfully kept out of possession for three years by the opposite party. The learned Judge considered that the claim of the applicant fell under Article 31, Schedule II, of the Small Causes Courts Act and was not, therefore, cognizable by him. He accordingly returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. He is supported in the view of the law he has taken by a case of this Court, i. e. Sheo Bodh v. Surjan 19 Ind. Cas. 427 : 11 A.L.J. 238 as also by several oases of the Bombay and the Madras High Courts. For the applicant reliance is placed on the Full Bench ruling of Kunjo Behary Singh v. Madhub Chundra Ghose 23 C. 884 : 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 587 (F.B). The view taken by the Calcutta High Court seems to have be...
Emperor Vs. Lalji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All140
Knox, J.1. A magistrate of the first class in Bareilly ordered three persons to execute a bond for keeping the peace. The persons so bound applied to the Sessions Judge for a revision of this order. The learned Sessions Judge went into the reasons set out by the magistrate for passing his order and came to the conclusion that the applicants should not have been bound over, and that the order binding them over should be set aside. He considered that under the ruling Banarsi Das v. Partab Singh (1912) I. L. R., 35 All., 108, this could only be done by reference to this Court. He has accordingly sent the case up with a recommendation that the order be set aside. The case before the however, differs from the case of Banarsi Das v. Partab Singh (1912) I. L. R., 35 All., 108. In this last case the District Magistrate had treated it as though it were an appeal and had cancelled the order of the lower court. It was held that the order of the District Magistrate was void as an order passed with...
Moti Chand and ors. Vs. Lalta Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All201; (1918)ILR40All256; 44Ind.Cas.596
Walsh, J.1. The facts of this case are remarkably simple, though the questions which have been raised and discussed before us have covered a wide area. The plaintiffs, who brought this suit in the court of the Third Additional Subordinate Judge of Aligarh to enforce a mortgage, or rather, as they alleged, two mortgages, dated respectively the 15th of May and the 21st of July, 1909, carry on business an bankers and commission agents in the city of Benares. The defendants at or about the time carried on business as saltpetre merchants, and were, in the year 1909, obviously in considerable difficulties. Through the medium of an agent or general-attorney of the plaintiffs, one Beni Prasad Dube, it was arranged between the plaintiffs and one of the defendants, Sri Krishn Chand, that, inasmuch as a considerable sums was already due from the defendants to the plaintiffs in respect of commission and other dealings which had taken place between them, the plaintiffs, instead of pressing for paym...
Lalji and ors. Vs. Emperor (Gendan Lal)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All343; 43Ind.Cas.604
George Knox, J.1. A Magistrate of the First Class in Bareilly ordered three persons to execute a bond for keeping the peace. The persons so bound applied to the Sessions Judge for a revision of this order. The learned Sessions Judge went .into the reasons jet out by the Magistrate for passing his order and came to the conclusion that the applicants should not have been bound over and that the order binding them over should be set aside. He considered that under the ruling Banarsi Das v. Partab Singh 18 Ind. Cas. 351 : 35 A. 103 : 11 A.L.J. 16 : 14 L.J. 63, this could only be done by reference to this Court. He has accordingly sent the case up with a recommendation that the order be set aside. The case before me, however, differs from the case of Banarsi Das v. Partab Singh 18 Ind. Cas. 351 : 35 A. 103 : 11 A.L.J. 16 : 14 L.J. 63. In this last case the District Magistrate had treated it as though it were an appeal and cancelled the order of the lower Court. It was held that the order of...
Emperor Vs. Liaqat HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All138
Banerji, J.1. The applicants in this case were charged under Sections 342, 323 and 454 of the Indian Penal Code by one Ganga Sahai who filed a petition of complaint in the court of a magistrate of the first class. The magistrate apparently after examining the complainant ordered an inquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code by a magistrate of the third class. A report was made by that magistrate and as a result of that report the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 without issuing any notice to the persons against whom the complaint was made. Upon application made to the learned Sessions Judge, he set aside the order of dismissal and directed that the case should be tried by another magistrate. Before making his order he did not issue notice to the accused persons to show cause why the order of dismissal should not be set aside. On the strength of this omission the present application for revision has been made and the only contention put forward on behalf of the ap...
Liaqat HusaIn and ors. Vs. Emperor Through Ganga Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All258(2); 43Ind.Cas.622
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The applicants in this case were charged before a Magistrate of the First Class under Sections 342, 323 and 454 of the Indian Penal Code by one Ganga Sahai, who filed a petition of complaint in the Court of a Magistrate of the First Class. -The Magistrate apparently after examining the complainant ordered an enquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code by a Magistrate of the Third Class. A report was made by that Magistrate and as a result of that report the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 without issuing any notice to the persons against whom the complaint was made. Upon application made to the learned Sessions Judge, he bet aside the order of dismissal and directed that the case should be tried toy another Magistrate. Before making his order he did not issue notice to the accused persons to show cause why the order of dismissal should lot be set aside. By reason of this omission the present application for revision has been made, and the only ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »