Allahabad Court May 1918 Judgments
Babu Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All26; 46Ind.Cas.848
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The applicant Babu Ram has been convicted under Section 155 of the Municipalities Act, No. II of 1916, on a charge of having introduced into the limits of the Municipality certain bags of sugar without payment of octroi duty. It has been fully proved by the evidence, which the Court below has believed, that the applicant, who is a broker, took delivery of sixty bags of sugar and did not pay the octroi duty payable for the goods. It is said that as he was merely a broker and the agent of the consignee, the consignee should have been punished. This contention is, in my opinion, not tenable. The person liable to punishment is the person who introduces the goods into the limits of the Municipality without payment of octroi duty. It was the accused who did this, and, therefore, he has been rightly convicted. I do not consider the fine inflicted on him to be unduly excessive having regard to the circumstances of the case. The application is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Said Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.1004
P.C. Banerjee, J.1. The applicant Muhammad Said has been convicted under Section 16 of Act No. VIII of 1914, Indian Motor vehicles Act of 1914. The charge against Him was that he had violated Rule 12 of the rules framed by the Local Government under Section 11 of the Act. The case for the prosecution, as stated by the learned Magistrate who tried the case was that there were no 'head lights' on the oar. The Magistrate was of opinion that Rule 2 (Clause 1) of the rules framed by the Local Government refers to 'head lights' only, and that as the 'head lights' in the case of the car of the accused were not lighted, he was guilty of a breach of Rule 12 (Clause 1). Rule 12 provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle during the period commencing half an hour after sunset and ending half an hour before sunrise unless such vehicle is provided with lights as follows:(1) in the case of vehicles other than motor cycles;(a) one lamp showing a white light in front affixed on each side of th...
Tag this Judgment!Goswami Gordhan Lalji and ors. Vs. Goswami Maksudan Ballabh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All648
Pramada Charan Banerji and Ryves, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application for the execution of a decree passed on the 17th of December, 1906, in a suit brought by one Goswami Manohar Lal against a number of defendants, of whom the appellant, Piari Lal, is one. Certain persons who were alleged to have the same rights as the plaintiffs were made defendants of the third party, one of these defendants being the present applicant for execution, Goswami Maksudan Ballabh. A decree was made by the court against all the defendants of the first and the second party, with the exception'of one Kishori Lal, declaring that the plaintiff and the defendants of the third party were entitled to perform the 'Singar Arti' ceremony in a certain temple both on ordinary and festive occasions. The decree also ordered a perpetual injunction to issue restraining the defendants of the first and second parties from obstructing the plaintiff and the defendants third party from performing the duties of the o...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Shabban Bibi Vs. Babu Khaliq Shah and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All112(2); 51Ind.Cas.624
Piggott, J.1. In this case the two defendants are the brother and nephew of the late Raja Muhammad Salamat Khan of Azamgarh, who died on April 3rd, 1912. He had made an arrangement in his lifetime intended to secure the succession of his nephew, the younger defendant, to his title and the bulk of his estates, this arrangement seems to have been given effect to, with the sanction of Government, as regards the title. The plaintiff, Musammat Shabban Bibi, claims to be the sole surviving widow of the late Raja; she brings this suit to recover her dower debt stated at Rs. 40,000 and claims at the same time subsidiary relief by way of declaration as to the property from which this dower-debt is recoverable. She reserves her claim to possession of one-fourth of the estate, as an heir of the deceased under the Muhammadan Law, for a separate litigation. The defendants replied that the plaintiff was never married to Raja Muhammad Salamat Khan, and consequently no dower was ever fixed for her, or...
Tag this Judgment!Birjraj Saran Singh Vs. Mansukh Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All646
Piggott, J.1. The applicants in this case are certain defendants against whom a decree for Rs. 15 as damages has been passed in favour of the plaintiff by the learned Munsif of Meerut in the exercise of his jurisdiction as Judge of a Court of Small Causes. The question raised by this application is whether the cognizance of the court below was or was not barred by the provisions of Section 167 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, Local Act No. II of 1901. Putting aside certain matters of detail no longer in controversy, the essential facts may be stated thus:-The defendants were tenants with a right of occupancy of two plo(sic) agricultural land, the property of the plaintiff. Some where within the boundaries of this agricultural holding there stood two trees which were not the property of the defendants but of the plaintiff The defendants cut down those trees and appropriated the timber thereof to their own use. It scarcely requires to be pointed out that, apart from any provision of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mansukh Ram and ors. Vs. Birjraj Saran Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All221(2); 46Ind.Cas.971
Piggott, J.1. The applicants in this case are certain defendants against whom a decree for Rs. 15 as damages has been passed in favour of the plaintiff by the learned Munsif of Meerut in the exercise of his jurisdiction as Judge of a Court of Small Causes. The question raised by this application is whether the cognizance of the Court below was or was not barred by the provisions of Section 167 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, Local Act No. II of 1901. Putting aside certain matters of detail no longer in controversy, the essential facts may be stated thus: The defendants were tenants with a right of occupancy of two plots of agricultural land, the property of the plaintiff. Somewhere within the boundaries of this agricultural holding there stood two trees, which were not the property of the defendants but of the plaintiff. The defend-ants cut down those trees and appropriated the timber thereof to their own use. It scarcely requires to be pointed out that, apart from any provision of the local ...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All85(1); 47Ind.Cas.91
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The applicant, Manohar, has been convicted under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, under the following circumstances. He submitted a petition to the District Magistrate in which he stated that certain tenants occupying his houses had absconded, leaving the houses looked up, and he prayed that the houses might be unlocked and opened to enable him to execute repairs, as otherwise the houses would fall down when the rains began. The application was sent to the Police for compliance and report. The Sub-Inspector reported that the allegations in the petition were untrue. Thereupon the District Magistrate sanctioned the prosecution of the accused under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, and he was tried and convicted. The question is whether the conviction is legal. Under Section 182 a person who gives to a public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such pu...
Tag this Judgment!Ragunath and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.810
P.C. Banerji, C.J.1.The applicants have been convicted under the Gambling Act III of 1867, as amended by Act I of 1017, Raghunath has been convicted under Section 8, the others under Section 4 of the Act, The case against these persons was that they were carrying on wagering or betting on sattas relating to the sale of opium. Raghunath was charged with keeping a common gambling house. Under Act I of 1917 wagering or betting has been included in the definition of ' game, ' and any article used as a means or appurtenance of or for the purpose of carrying on or facilitating gaming is included in the expression ' instrument of gaming. ' What happened was this. The Police raided the shop of Raghunath where he deals in cloth. They found the other accused (and some others) assembled there, sitting round a lighted lamp and some writing was being done by one of the persons assembled. The Police seized a number of papers which were found in that room. They also found money in a box of Raghunath ...
Tag this Judgment!Harnam Singh and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All406(1); 47Ind.Cas.875
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The applicant in this case has been convicted under Section 40 5 of the Indian Penal Code. What happened was this. Certain moveable property was attached in execution of a decree. The officer of the Court who made the attachment placed the properly in charge of the accused. When the time for suction-sale of the property arrived, notice was issued to the accused to produce the property. They evaded service of the notice on several occasions and the property was not produced. For this they have been held to be guilty of criminal breach of trust. The accused were no doubt entrusted with the attached property, but they would not be guilty of criminal breach of trust unless they dishonestly misappropriated or converted the property to their own use or dishonestly used or disposed of it in violation of any direction of law describing the mode in which the trust which they undertook was to be discharged. In the present case the property was not misappropriated or converted ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sheo Sampat Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All641
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The applicant, Sheo Sampat, who is an old man of seventy, has been convicted under Section 193 and Section 210 of the Indian Penal Code, under the following circumstances:- Sheo Sampat brought a suit in the Revenue Court against one Barbu for arrears of rent. He claimed Rs. 16-11-0 as principal and interest. An ex parte decree was passed in his favour on the 29th of September, 1916 for Rs. 9-4-0 and Rs. 2-5-0 costs, total Rs. 11-9-0. The judgment-debtor, Barbu, made an application to have the ex parte decree set aside. This application was granted. The case was re-heard and on the 24th of May, 1917 a decree was made for Rs. 8-3-0, which included costs. On the 19th of May, 1917, Sheo Sampat filed an application for execution of the decree. In that application the date of the decree was erroneously mentioned as the 20th of June, 1917, and the amount claimed was put down as Rs. 16-11-0. He took out attachment of some Property of the judgment-debtor. Meanwhile ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »