Allahabad Court December 1918 Judgments
Muhammad Sharif Vs. Radha Mohan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All68; (1919)ILR61All274
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge in an insolvency matter, dated the 8th of March, 1918.2. One Batuk Prasad obtained a decree for Rs. 6,449-3-9 against the debtors who were subsequently adjudicated insolvents. This decree was obtained in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Benares on the 27th of June, 1912, The debtors had obtained a decree in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur in suit No. 92 of 1914. The decree was attached by Batuk Prasad in 1914. On the 7th of August, 1914, a petition was filed in insolvency against the judgment-debtors. On the 4th of March, 1915, an interim receiver was appointed. On the 4th of May, 1915, the money due under the decree was deposited in the court of Jaunpur to the credit of the attaching decree-holder, who on the 19th of May, 1915, applied to that court for payment out to him, without giving notice to the receiver. On the 7th of July, the creditor obtained an order for payment and on the, 10...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Sharif Vs. Radha Mohan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1918
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.760
1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge in an insolvency matter, dated the 8th March 1918.2. One Batuk Prasad obtained a decree for Rs. 6,449.3.9 against the debtors who were subsequently adjudicated insolvents. This decree was obtained in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Banares on the 27th June 1912. The debtors had obtained a decree in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur in Suit No. 92 of 1914. The decree was attached by Batuk Prasad in 1914. On the 7th of August 1914 a petition was filed in insolvency against the judgment debtors. On the 4th March 1915 an interim Receiver was appointed. On the 11th May 1915 the money due under the decree was deposited in the Court of Jaunpur to the credit of the attaching decree-bolder, who on the 19th May 1915 applied to that Court for payment out to him, without giving notice to the Receiver. On the 7th of July the creditor obtained an order for payment and on the 10th July 1915, Rs. 1,984 1 were raid cut to him l...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kifayat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All188(1); (1919)ILR61All272
Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. I have read the order of reference of the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut. It appears to me that in view of the provisions of Section 8 of Act III of 1867, the order about the forfeiture of the money seized at the house is correct, vide Emperor v. Tota (1904) I.L.R., 26 All., 270. Let the record be returned to the lower court....
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kifayat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.165
Rafique, J.1. I have read the order of reference of the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut. It appears to me that in view of the provisions of Section 8, of Act III of 1867, the order about the forfeiture of the money seized at the house is correct vide Emperor v. Tota 26 A. 270 : A.W.N. (1901) 11 : I Cr.L.J. 35. Let the record be returned to the lower Court....
Tag this Judgment!Ewaz Singh Vs. Umrai Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All267; (1919)ILR61All270
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. We agree with the view taken by the learned Judge of this Court and dismiss the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Bahadur and ors. Vs. Madho Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All223(1); 49Ind.Cas.620
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession. It appears that a man of the name of Asharfi Lal married no less than four times. He had issue by all four wives and sons by three. When Asharfi Lal died, the defendants are alleged to have gone into possession of one-third of the property left by Asharfi. The plaintiffs thereupon instituted the present suit. Their claim is certainly somewhat peculiar. It is alleged that the plaintiffs lived jointly with their father and that the defendants were separated from their father. But it is clear that even if this were so, the plaintiffs could not succeed in their present suit if we assume that the property belonged to Asharfi. The facts as found by the Court below seem to be as follows. Asharfi having married a number of times, the defendants (who were the sons of the first wife) left the house. They had got a small property from Musammat Bakhta Kunwar, who was the widow of their grandfather's brother. But it must clearly be borne in mind t...
Tag this Judgment!Gobardhan Das and ors. Vs. Anmole Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All293; 49Ind.Cas.803
1. The facts connected with this appeal are extremely complicated but as they are admitted and the only question involved is one of law, they can be stated with little detail. There were three mortgages, one of the year 1874, one of the year 1886 and one of the year 1888, They were in favour of the same mortgagees (who, as a matter of fact, were the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2). In the year 1903 the father of the respondents purchased an 8-anna share in Mauza Beli, which was part of the property included in all three mortgages. This purchase was by private treaty. A decree was obtained in the year 1895 on foot of the first mortgage, and that decree was made absolute in 1896. Subsequently another decree was obtained on foot of the other two mortgages in 1906 and made absolute in 1907. The plaintiffs in the present suit purchased at an auction sale, held in execution of this last mentioned decree, certain portion of the mortgaged property. Their purchase was in 1...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sakhawat Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All302
George Knox, J.1. Early in November last an application was presented to a learned Judge of this Court which is described as being a criminal revision against the order of M. Mumtaz-ullah Khan, Magistrate of the first class of Basti, dated the 7th of September, 1918, charge under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, It is sub-divided into three-heads, The first is: 'Because, there being no order showing that the learned Magistrate was satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists, and he not having made any order in writing stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, the whole proceeding was without jurisdiction and the order is ultra vires.' I need not, at any rate at present, go into the second and third grounds set out in this application. The application is endorsed by an order of this Court which runs as follows;--'I admit this under Section 107 of the Government of India Act. Let notice go to show cause whether proceedings were taken and order...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sarju and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All231
Piggott, J.1. These are applications of two persons, Sarju and Lallu, who have been required to furnish security to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. They were brought before a Magistrate along with four other persons, the case for the prosecution being that these six men were individually habitual thieves and house-breakers and also were associated together in the matter under inquiry, The judgment of the trying Magistrate and the appellate judgment of the learned District Magistrate show that the police had beyond question very substantial reasons for the action taken by them. The six men had been arrested together under circumstances of grave suspicion and the circumstances of their arrest constituted in themselves evidence of association. As against four out of the six men there was overwhelming evidence of their being habitual criminals as alleged by the prosecution. Such being the case the evidence of habitual association on the part of Lallu and Sarju with these cri...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Datt Tewari Vs. Jittan Tamboli
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.771
1. This is a first appeal from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Benares refusing to sanction the prosecution of one Jittan Tamboli for the offence of forgery, or some cognate offence, committal in connection with a suit which was tried by the Munsif of Benares. An appeal against the decision of the Munsif in the said suit came before the Subordinate Judge of Benares for decision. The Subordinate Judge disposed of the appeal and a second appeal against his decree is nosy pending in this Court, In the meantime the present appellant went to the Subordinate Judge with an application for sanction to prosecute under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Subordinate Judge rejected that application. A further application to grant the sanction which the Subordinate Judge had refused, whether such application be described as an appeal from the order refusing sanction or as a fresh application, undoubtedly lay under Section 195, Clause (6), of the Criminal Procedure Code to a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »