Allahabad Court March 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.
Durga Das and anr. Vs. Jai NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1917
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All513
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This application arises out of a suit for dissolution of partnership. It is admitted that the parties reside within the jurisdiction of the court at Aligarh. It is admitted that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court at Aligarh. It appears, however, that the factory which belongs to the parties is situate outside the jurisdiction. The defendants pleaded that the court at Aligarh had no jurisdiction to hear the case and that the suit should have been brought where the factory was situate. This contention found favour with both the courts below. The plaintiffs have challenged the order of the court below by this application in revision. We think that the decisions of the courts below were incorrect. It is admitted that unless the case can be brought within the provisions of Section 16 of the Code, the proper court in which to institute the suit was the court at Aligarh. Section 16 provides that 'Subject to...
Chandan Lal Vs. Khemraj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All239(2); 40Ind.Cas.156
1. This application arises out of an insolvency matter. Chandan Lai is the debtor. A petition for a declaration of insolvency was presented by one of his creditors. The debtor appears to have submitted a proposal for composition under Section 27 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. This proposal was in the first instance accepted by the Judge of the Small Cause Court before whom the insolvency matter was pending. On an appeal, however, the matter was remanded with certain directions. As the result the Small Cause Court Judge refused to accept the composition. On appeal to the District Judge the order of the Small Cause Court was affirmed. The insolvent comes to this Court in an application by way of revision with various grounds of objection. The first ground was that the District Judge had erred in holding that certain debts, which were paid up subsequent to the application, should not be taken into account when considering the proposal for composition. Secondly because the debts had bee...
Muhammad Khadim HusaIn Vs. Ahmad Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.175
1. In this case a minor having attained age his guardian, who was his own brother, applied for his discharge. The District Judge granted the application and ordered the ex-guardian to deliver up possession of all accounts in his possession. The ex-minor contended that the learned District Judge was bound to go into all the accounts of the guardian during the time he acted as such. The learned District Judge held that there was no such duty imposed on him by law, and accordingly declined to go into the accounts. The ex minor Comes here and contends that the District Judge refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law. We think that a District Judge who has appointed a guardian and directed him to file accounts should look into those accounts from time to time during the minority, but there is no obligation on the District Judge when the minor has attained majority to review the accounts or to direct the guardian to render accounts afresh. The District Judge has express power...
Ajodhia Prasad Vs. Gopi Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1917
Reported in: 1917AIHC349; 39Ind.Cas.578
1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. A decree was obtained for Rs. 18,055. The decree-holder made an application for execution and certain property was advertised for sale. The decree-holder stated that the estimated value of the property was Rs. 6,880. This was a calculation based on the revenue. One Hulas Rai, a witness for the decree-holder, stated that he was prepared to buy the property for Rs. 27,000. The judgment-debtor objected and said that the property was worth Rs. 35,000. The Court estimated the value of the property at the sum which Hulas Rai stated he was prepared to give, namely, Rs. 27,000. The present appeal is from this order.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies and the case of Sivagami Achi v. Subrahmania Ayyar 27 M. 259 ; 14 M.L.T. 57 is cited. It is a Full Bench ruling of the Madras High Court and is exactly in point. I agree with this ruling. The appeal lies, if at all, because the question in the Court below related to the '...
Lalta Prasad and ors. Vs. Sheoraj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All158(2); 41Ind.Cas.346
Tudball, J.1. (February 15th, 1917.)---The facta of this case may be briefly stated as follows. The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The suit was resisted by the present appellant, who denied the plaintiff's right to redeem and also challenged the amount on which redemption was sought. The Court below held that the plaintiff had the right to redeem and directed that the accounts be taken. The defendant appealed against that decree. He paid the necessary Court-fees and the appeal was admitted. The Court below has now gone into the accounts and has found a sum of about Rs. 37,000 to be due The defendant has again appealed and he claims a sum of about Rs. 51,000. He has filed his appeal on a two-rupee stamp. The office reports that the Court-fee is the ad valorem fee on the value of the appeal. The only argument before me is that the appellant has had to appeal once against the preliminary decree, that it was the fault of the Court below in passing this pr...
In Re: Bhajan Lal and ors. Vs. Chahat Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.176
Tudball, J.1. The objections filed are not cross-objections. The suit was a suit for possession of property and it was dismissed in toto as against the defendant-respondent. It is obvious that the defendant-respondent could not have appealed from that decree. No appeal lies against the finding only on an issue. What he is clearly seeking in the present case to do is to support the decree on some of the grounds which have been decided against him in the Court below. These are not cross-objections and, therefore, the Court-fee paid is sufficient....
Emperor Vs. Satish Chandra Ghosh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All412
Walsh, J.1. I reject this reference in the sense that I cannot agree with the view of the Sessions Judge. As at present advised I think that the share-holders can by extraordinary general resolution appoint a liquidator by accepting the nomination of the directors. That is only one way of making their own selection. But it is not necessary to decide this, and I do not decide as a matter of law whether the appointment was good or bad. I think the question whether the appointment was good or bad is immaterial. The applicant was in fact appointed. He accepted the appointment and he acted in the capacity of liquidator, He was de facto liquidator if not de jure liquidator. Nobody else is suggested to have been liquidator, and the object of the provision is (I am saying nothing against this gentleman, who has behaved with propriety so far as I can see) to prevent a liquidator from acting as such with some sinister object, and then, after the mischief has been done, turning round and saying t...
Nand Ram Vs. Jiwa Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All117; 41Ind.Cas.23
1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. It appears that one Gobardhan Das died leaving him surviving two widows, Musammat Rupo and Musammat Singhari. On the 19th of August 1900, Musammat Singhari made a waqf of half the property of her deceased husband in favour of a temple of Gangaji in Aligarh district. Subsequent to the death of Musammat Singbari, the other widow Musammat Rupo adopted one Jiwa Ram, alleging that she had permission from her husband to do so. On the 21st August 1909, she and Jiwa Ram sued for possession of the waqf property questioning the validity of the waqf. Nand Ram, who was appointed by the deed of waqf as mutawalli and was in possession of the waqf property, contested the suit. He denied the alleged adoption of Jiwa Ram. The Subordinate Judge, who tried the suit, held that the adoption of Jiwa Ram was not proved and that the waqf was invalid. He decreed the claim of Musammat Rupo for possession of the waqf property. In execution of that decree Musamm...
Achhaibar Singh and ors. Vs. Musammat Radhi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All405(1); 40Ind.Cas.404
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for redemption. The memorandum of appeal purports to raise two substantial points; but one of these, namely, that relating to the sum payable under a decree of the 9th of December 1892, is concluded by an adverse finding of fact of the lower Appellate Court. There remains only one substantial point. The mortgage sought to be redeemed is of the 28th of February 1891. On the 4th of September 1891 a further advance was made by the mortgagee to the mortgagor on the security of the same property. The property in question was hypothecated by way of simple mortgage, and there was a further covenant to the effect that this simple mortgage should be paid off before the usufructuary mortgage is redeemed. The plaintiffs claim to redeem the usufructuary mortgage without paying any sum due under the simple mortgage of the 4th of September 1691. The lower Appellate Court has maintained the claim of the plaintiffs upon a line of reasoning based on the ...
Satish Chandra Ghosh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All98(2); 39Ind.Cas.478
Walsh, J.1. I reject this reference in the sense that I cannot agree with the view of the Sessions Judge. As at present advised, I think that the share-holders can by extraordinary general resolution appoint a liquidator by accepting the nomination of the Directors. That is only one way of making their own selection. But it is not necessary to decide this and I do not decide as a matter of law whether the appointment was good or bad. I think the question whether the appointment was good or bad is immaterial. The applicant was in fact appointed. He accepted the appointment and lie acted in the capacity of liquidator. He was de facto liquidator, if not de jure liquidator. Nobody else is suggested to have been liquidator, and the whole scheme and object of the provision is (I am saying nothing against this gentleman as he has behaved with propriety as far as I can see) to prevent a liquidator from acting as such collusively, accepting the appointment with some sinister object, somebody el...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »