Allahabad Court February 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.
Chotey Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All329; 39Ind.Cas.848
George Knox, J.1. While I think that in every case, whether under Section 195 or Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the particular statement, when the offence refers to a statement, should, be set out so that the accused person should not be taken by surprise, but should clearly know what is the statement which he is required to meet, I am not prepared to hold that the non-specification of the statament is a material irregularity. The law does not, so far as I can find out, require that the statement should be set out, and in the present case there can be no room for doubt what is the statement which the accused person has to meet. I dismiss the application with costs....
Lal Gayendra Singh Vs. Musammat Tirsa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All292(1); 38Ind.Cas.139
George Knox, J.1. This application arises out of a suit that was brought in a Small Cause Court. The suit was decreed ex parte. After it had been decreed ex parte, the defendant applied to have the ex parte order set aside but she did not, at the time of presenting the application, either deposit the amount due under the ex parts decree or give security to the satisfaction of the Court for the due performance of the decree. The Small Cause Court set aside the decree, saying that it had passed it without remembering that the defendant was represented by any Pleader. The plaintiff now applies to this Court that the order setting aside the ex parte decree may be set aside, on the ground that the decretal amount was not paid in Court or security given for payment and so the Court had no jurisdiction, The Court certainly had no jurisdiction to pass the order that it did and I have no alternative but to set it aside. It is contended that the Court acted under its inherent powers and not upon...
Behari Vs. Kure
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All318(2); 38Ind.Cas.446
Walsh, J.1. The point of law which in this revision has been argued seems to me to be based upon a misconception. The contention is that the sanction for prosecution lapses because the person who applied for it has died. There appears to be some ground for saying that some Courts have taken the view that a sanction is a grant to a particular individual. It has even been described as devolving upon heirs. I think it is nothing of the kind. I agree with Mr. Hamilton's contention that if you look at the section, all that it enacts is a bar to prosecution in certain cases until a sanction under the Section has been granted. Whether a person who applies for the removal of the bar is the proper person to apply is for the Court to decide to whom the application is made. If the Court is satisfied that sanction ought to be given, the bar is removed, and the sanction is in no way a grant to any individual. I agree entirely with the following observations from the Sessions Judge whose judgment wa...
Sheopal Singh Vs. Badri Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All321(1); 38Ind.Cas.206
George Knox, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this application for civil revision. It is to the effect that as the plaintiff could appeal from the decree passed in the miscellaneous case Lal Bahadur Singh v. Sheopal Singh, this application should not be entertained. As a precedent for this contention I am referred to the case of Nand Ram v. Bopal Singh 16 Ind. Cas. 1 : 34 A. 592 : 10 A.L.J. 130. This Court held that an application under Section 115(622?) of the old Code of Civil Procedure cannot be entertained in the case of those interlocutory orders against which, though no immediate appeal lies, a remedy is supplied by Section 105, which provides that they may be made a ground of objection in appeal against the final decree. The new Code has made no alteration and this judgment, Nand Ram v. Bhopal Singh 16 Ind. Cas. 1 : 34 A. 592 : 10 A.L.J. 130, was in accordance with the previous precedents of this Court, see Farid Ahmed v. Dulari Bibi 6 A. 233 : A.W.N. (188...
Gaya DIn Vs. Sri Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All17(1); (1917)ILR39All364; 39Ind.Cas.649
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a, suit brought by the holder of a hundi against the drawer, the parties on whom the hundi was drawn and the persons in whose favour it was made. The court of first instance dismissed the suit as against all the parties except the drawer. The lower appellate court has dismissed the suit altogether on the ground that the note was not presented. It is admitted that the note was not presented; but the appellant contends that this is no defence as against the drawer, unless it is shown that the drawer suffered damage, and it is urged that the onus lies on the drawer of showing that he suffered damage. Section 64 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that promissory notes, bills of exchange and cheques must be presented for payment to the maker, acceptor or drawee by or on behalf of the holder. This also is the English law, and on the face of the hundi it ought to have been presented. In other words, that was the c...
Lachman Das Vs. Ahmad Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All304; (1917)ILR39All357
Tudball, J.1. Two points are taken: (1) that no appeal lay to the District Judge : (2) that even if it did, the petition of the 5th of February, 1912, did contain an acknowledgement, and that under explanation II of Section 19 of the Limitation Act the pleader was an agent duly authorized by the judgement-debtor to make the statement in that petition. In regard to the question of jurisdiction the decisions of this Court perhaps are a bit conflicting. The later decisions are all against the applicant. In Mangal Sen v. Rup Chand (1891) I.L.R. 13 All. 324 a Bench of this Court held as follows: 'In other words, whatever the intention of the Legislature was, we read Section 35 of Act IX of 18S7, in the same sense that we read the concluding paragraph of Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure.' If this view be correct, then the Munsif in the present case acted as a Small Cause Court and no appeal lay. But this decision has not been accepted in Sarju Prasad v. Mahadeo Pande (1915) I.L.R. 3...
Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Victoria Mills Company, Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All362
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The only question which has been argued in this case is whether the applicants defendants were entitled to set-off against the plaintiff's claim the amount which they claimed as damages. The plaintiff was in the employment of the defendants as a clerk. On the 4th of April, 1916, he resigned his appointment and went away. He brought the present suit to recover his salary for the month of March and for the four days of April. He also claimed his pay for the month of May. The defendants filed a written statement, in the 13th paragraph of which they claimed that they were entitled to Rs. 14 'by way of damages in lieu of notice.' The court below made a decree for the wages for March and dismissed the remainder of the claim. It was of opinion that the defendants were not entitled to any further damages, It is contended in this application for revision that the court below ought to have allowed a set-off of the damages claimed. I am of opinion that this contention...
The Victoria Mills Co., Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All176(1); 38Ind.Cas.203
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The only question which has been argued in this case is whether the applicants-defendants were entitled to set off against the plaintiff's claim the amount which they claimed as damages. The plaintiff was in the employment of the defendants as a clerk. On the 4th of April 1916, lie resigned his appointment and went away. Ho brought the present suit to recover his salary for the month of March and for the four days of April, He also claimed his pay for the month of May. The defendants filed a written statement, in the 13th paragraph of which they claimed that they were entitled to Rs. 14, 'by way of damages in lieu of notice.' The Court below made a decree for the wages for March and dismissed the remainder of the claim. It was of opinion that the defendants were not entitled to any further damages. It is contended in this application for revision that the Court below ought to have allowed a set-off of the damages claimed. I am of opinion that this contention cannot p...
Lachhman Das Vs. Ahmad Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.105
Tudball, J.1. This is a revision arising out of the following circumstances:--Lachhman Das obtained a decree on the 9th of April 1911 in the Court of Small Causes. On the 21st of December 1911 an application for execution by the arrest of the judgment-debtor was made. On the 24th of January 1912 the application was dismissed on the request of' the decree-holder. The warrant of arrest had, however, been issued, and on the 5th of February 1912 the judgment-debtor filed a petition through his Pleader in which he said that he was a poor man, that he was practically starving, and that the warrant of arrest should not be executed. The petition was not signed by the judgment-debtor himself but was signed by his Pleader. On the 5th of January 1918 a fresh application for execution was filed in the Court of the Munsif. The Small Cause Court in the meantime had ceased to exist. Objection was taken that the. application was time-barred. The decree-holder pleaded that the petition of 5th February ...
Muhammad Ahsan Ullah Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All354(2); 38Ind.Cas.969
1. The facts connected with this appeal are as follows. One Ahsanullah applied to be declared an insolvent. His petition was granted and the Receiver took possession of certain property as belonging to the insolvent, including the two watches, a bed and some cooking utensils which were not included in the list of his property given by the insolvent, Proceedings were taken on the report of the Receiver and the insolvent was sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment. He now appeals, contending in the first instance that the order was bad because no charge had been framed. He also appeals upon the merits. As to the first point we do not think that the order is absolutely illegal. The insolvent appears to have had an opportunity of meeting the charge against him, and he must have known what the charge was. At the same time we think, as has already been pointed out in this Court, that it is advisable for a Judge in an insolvency matter, when he intends to take proceedings which may resul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »