Allahabad Court April 1918 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.
Deo Saran Tewari Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All320(1); 46Ind.Cas.48
1. The accused in this case was convicted under Section 174, Indian Penal Code, on a charge of non-attendance in the Court of Mr. W. Gurney in obedience to a lawful summons. The case was tried by Mr. Gurney himself and he convicted the accused and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 10. This proceeding was illegal, having regard to the provisions of Section 487 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The case was one of those referred to in Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, and, therefore, could not be tried by the officer whose order was disobeyed. I accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine, if paid, be refunded....
Chaturi Singh Vs. Musamaut Rania and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All290(2); (1918)ILR40All525
Pramada Charan Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. This application for revision arises under the following circumstances. A suit to recover Rs. 273 upon a bond was instituted in court of the first Additional Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, who was invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes to try suits cognizable by a Court of Small Causes not exceeding Rs. 500 in value. Whilst the suit was pending on the Small Cause Court side of the court, Mr. Shams-ud-din Khan, the presiding officer of the court, proceeded on privilege leave for five weeks and made over charge of his office on the 17th of November, 1916. Mr. Piari Lal Chaturvedi was appointed to act for him as Subordinate Judge, but by an order of the 24th of November, 1916, he was invested with the jurisdiction of Small Causes in respect of suits, the value of which did not exceed Rs. 250. On the 29th of November, 1916, the District Judge passed an order transferring to the court of the Munsif of Haveli, Aligarh, all suits pen...
Chaturi Singh Vs. Ramia and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.893
1. This application for revision arises under the following circumstances. A suit to recover Rs. 273 upon a bond was instituted in the Court of the first Additional Subordinate Judge of Aligarh who was invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes to try suits cognizable by a Court of Small Causes not exceeding Rs. 500 in value. Whilst the suit was pending on the Small Cause Court side of the Court, Mr. Shams-ud-din Khan, the presiding officer of the Court, proceeded on privilege leave for five weeks and made over charge of his office on November 17, 1916. Mr. Piarey Lal Chaturvedi was appointed to act for him as Subordinate Judge, but by an order of the 24th of November 1916 he was invested with the jurisdiction of Small Causes in respect of suits, the value of which did not exceed Rs. 250. On the 29th of November 1916, the District Judge passed an order transferring to the Court of the Munsif of Haveli Aligarh, all suits pending in the Small Cause Court side of the Additi...
Bhagwana Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All130; 45Ind.Cas.513
1. The accused has been convicted under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 23 of the Criminal Tribes Act. The accused beyond all question belongs to a criminal tribe. He has been twice previously convicted of dacoity. From the evidence on the record there can be no doubt that the accused in the present case entered a dwelling-house and proceeded to steal clothes and utensils belonging to certain students. He removed some of the articles preparatory to taking them away, but before he actually got away the alarm was given and he was caught. The learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that under Section 23 of the Criminal Tribes Act he had no option except to sentence the accused to transportation for life. Mr. Sinha on behalf of the accused argues that on the facts proved the accused was not guilty of an offence punishable under Section 457. He contends that on the assumption that the accused is guilty at all, he is only guilty under Section 380. Section 380 is not one ...
Nathu and anr. Vs. Musammat Tulsha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All342(2); 45Ind.Cas.728
1. We think the view taken by the Court below was correct on the findings of fact arrived at by it. Assuming that there was a debt due by Gillay which it was the legal and pious duty of the widow to discharge, that debt was discharged by Kunji taking over the liability and agreeing to pay it oft by instalments. It than ceased to be a debt either of Gillay or his widow. The mere fact that Kunji did not perform his obligations would not revive the debt so as to make it a good consideration for the alienation of the property. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›