Allahabad Court November 1919 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.
Bishun Padu Haldar Vs. Firm Messrs. Chandi Prasad and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All7; 54Ind.Cas.437
Lindsay, J.1. A suit was. brought by the plaintiffs, a firm of chemists in Moradabad, against the defendants, also a firm of chemists carrying on a business in Benares. The amount in dispute was Rs. 61-10 0 and this sum was claimed by the plaintiffs on account of an alleged breach of contract. The main defence to the suit was that there was no contract between the parties. The lower Court found in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the claim. There were several other points debated in the Court below but here I am concerned only with the question whether or not there was a binding contract between the parties The facts may be briefly stated as follows: On the 7th of February 1918 the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants enquiring the price at which they could supply cocaine. The defendants replied on the 13th of February 1918 informing the plaintiffs that the rate for cocaine was Rs. 20 per ounce 'without engagement.' The meaning of this latter expression is that as the market rate of ...
Dirgpal Singh Vs. Pahladi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.528
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The suit was one to enforce two simple-mortgages. The present applicant, who is the purchaser of a part of the mortgaged property, contested the suit on the ground that the registration of the mortgages was invalid inasmuch as a part of the property comprised in the mortgage, which lay within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar in whose office the mortgage-deeds were registered, did not belong to the mortgagor and was never intended to be included in the mortgage. The Court below held that the registration of the document was invalid by reason of the fraud perpetrated on the registering officer. It relied for its decision upon the ruling of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhuri v. Hari Dasi Debt 23 Ind. Cas. 637 : 41 C 972 : 27 M.L.J. 80 : 12 A.L.J. 774 : 16 M.L.T. 6 : (1914) M.W.N. 462 : 1 L.W. 1050 : 18 C.W.N.. 817 : 19 C.L.J. 404 : 16 Bom. L.R. 400 : 41 I.A. 910 (P.C.)...
Lola Makhan Lal Vs. the Municipal Board of Agra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.459
Lindsay, J.1. This case involves the interpretation of Section 326 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act (United Provinces Act No. II of 1916). The suit out of which this application has arisen was brought by the plaintiff-petitioner, Lala Makhan Lal, against the Municipal Board of Agra. The claim was to recover a sum of Rs. 218-16-6. According to the facts set out in the plaint the plaintiff is a cloth dealer in Agra who at various times had exported from Agra cloth of considerable value. He claimed that he was entitled, by reason of this export, to have from the Municipal Board a refund of octroi duty. He put in a claim to the Board and his case is that the Board refused to pay to him the full amount to which he was entitled. The balance, which, he said, was owing to him from the Municipal Board, came to Rs. 218-10-6. In paragraph 6 of the plaint, it was stated that the cause of action had arisen on the 31st of October 1917 when the Board refused to pay him the balance claimed.2...
Dirgpal Singh Vs. Pahladi Lal and Laraiti Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All176
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The suit was one to enforce two simple mortgages. The present applicant, who is the purchaser of a part) of the mortgaged property, contested the suit on the ground that the registration of the mortgages was invalid, inasmuch as a part of the property comprised in the mortgage, which lay within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar in whose office the mortgage deeds were registered, did not belong to the mortgagor and was never intended to be included in the mortgage. The court below held that the registration of the document was invalid by reason of the fraud perpetrated on the registering officer. It relied for its decision upon the ruling of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Harendra, Lal Roy Chowdhuri v. Haridasi Debi (1913) I.L.R. 41 Calc. 972. Upon appeal to this Court), the learned Judges of this Court found that the mortgagor obtained reg...
Sajjad Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Ishaq Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All174
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This is an application by the parties who were defendants in the court of the Subordinate Judge for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against a decision of this Court, dated the 9th of January, 1918. It appears that an action was commenced on the 3rd of July, 1915, for the recovery of mesne profits, and when that action came on, the defendants took as their first point that this action was barred by reason of there having been a previous action between the same parties, and they relied upon Section 11, Explanation V, of the Code of Civil Procedure. They succeeded in persuading the learned Subordinate Judge that he ought to regard the claim as falling within the principle of res judicata. In that way the plaintiff's action came to a sudden termination. Thereupon the plaintiffs moved the High Court and on the appeal it was held that the claim: was not barred by reason of the previous action and the case was remanded for the de...
Lachmi NaraIn Vs. Sheonath Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All185
Lindsay, J.1. This application has reference to an order passed in appeal in certain arbitration proceedings. It appears that the plaintiff petitioner applied to the court of a Munsif to have an award made a rule of court. This application was made under paragraph 20 of the second schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure. The Munsif followed the procedure laid down in this paragraph and eventually wrote an order directing the award to be filed, and thereafter a decree was prepared on the basis of the award in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 21 (2) of the schedule. The defendants went in appeal to the lower appellate court against the order directing the filing of the award. The lower appellate court entertained the appeal, set; aside the order of the court of first instance and directed that the application for the filing of the award should be dismissed. The plaintiff now comes here in revision, and the first ground taken is that the court below acted without jurisdiction i...
Lachhmi NaraIn Vs. Sheo Nath Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All93; 54Ind.Cas.443
Lindsay, J.1. The application has reference to an order passed in appeal in certain arbitration proceedings. It appears that the plaintiff-petitioner applied to the Court of the Munsif to have an award made a rule of Court. This application was made under paragraph 20 of the Second Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure. The Munsif followed the procedure laid down in this paragraph and eventually wrote an order directing the award to be filed, and thereafter a decree was prepared on the basis of the award in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 21(2) of the Schedule. The defendants went in appeal to the lower Appellate Court against the order directing the filing of the award. The lower Appellate Court entertained the appeal, get aside the order of the Court of first instance and directed that the application for the filing of the award should be dismissed. The plaintiff now comes here in revision, and the first ground taken is that the Court below acted without jurisdiction in...
Parshotam Das and anr. Vs. B. Biththal Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All51; 54Ind.Cas.431
Lindsay, J.1. The only question to be discussed in this appeal relates to interest. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover the price of goods supplied to the defendants. The claim as Laid included a claim for interest at Rs. 1 per cent, per mensem. One of the pleas raised in defence was that the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim interest as there had been no agreement for payment of the same. The Court of first instance, relying on the statement of one of the defence witnesses, thought that the plaintiffs were entitled to interest at the rate of 0 8.0 per cent. per mensem. In appeal the learned District Judge has refused the claim for interest. He has referred to the provisions of the Interest Act (XXXII of 1839), and says the plaintiffs have failed to bring their case within the purview of that Act. After hearing the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants I think the Judge's view must be maintained. It is not pleaded here that there was any written instrumen...
Nawab Muhammad Sajjad Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Nawab Muhammad Ishaq Khan ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All31(2); 54Ind.Cas.504
1. This is an application by the parties who were defendants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against a decision of this Court, dated January 9th, 1918. It appears that an action was commenced on July 3rd, 1915, for the recovery of mesne profits and when that action came on, the defendants took as their first point that this action was barred by reason of there having been a previous action between the same parties, and they relied upon Section 11, Explanation V, of the Code of Civil Procedure. They succeeded in persuading the learned Subordinate Judge that he ought to regard the claim as falling within the principle of res judicita. In that way the plaintiffs' action came to a sudden termination. Thereupon the plaintiffs moved the High Court, and on the appeal it was held that the claim was not barred by reason of the previous action and the case was remanded for the decision of the Subordinate Judge. The result of., the High Court de...
Ram Lagan Pande and anr. Vs. Muhammad Ishaq Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All45; (1920)ILR42All181; 54Ind.Cas.395
Lindsay, J.1. It appears that the plaintiffs opposite party in this case brought a suit for pre-emption and on the 30th of May, 1918, got a decree. According to the decree the plaintiff's were liable to pay a sum of Rs. 100, and the decree provided that in default of payment within one month from the date of the decree the suit should stand dismissed. It is also apparent that the decree awarded a sum of Rs. 9 odd to the plaintiffs by way of costs payable by the defendants. What followed was this: 'Within the prescribed period of one month the plaintiffs deposited a sum of Rs. 99. Why this sum was deposited is not altogether clear, but for the purpose of deciding this case it is not necessary to examine this question. Later on it was noticed that the full amount of Rs. 100 mentioned in the decree as the purchase money had not been deposited. On the 26th of August, 1918, the plaintiffs made an application to the court praying for extension of the time in order that the deficit of one rup...