Allahabad Court October 1920 Judgments
Abdus Samad Vs. Yusuf
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All285; (1921)ILR43All281
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. In this case the complainant, a master, made a complaint before a magistrate of the first class against a young workman under Section 2 of Act No, XIII of 1859 alleging that he hart been guilty of a breach of contract inasmuch as he had failed to continue to work, although payment for his labour had been made under the contract in advance by the master. A magistrate of the first class dealt with the case summarily and dismissed it on the merits. The matter came up before the Sessions Judge who raised the question whether the proceeding was a proper one on the ground that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case summarily. The learned Sessions Judge has set out his view in a clearly reasoned statement referring to the authorities, and the magistrate who tried the case has submitted his explanation in an equally clear statement, maintaining his original view that he had jurisdiction to dispose of the case summarily.2. The question turns upon the interpr...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Abdus Samad Vs. Yusuf
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.917
1. In this case the complainant, a master, made a complaint before a Magistrate of the First Class against a young workman under Section 2 of Act No. XIII of 1359, alleging that he had been guilty of breach of contract inasmuch as he had failed to continue to work although payment for his labour had been made under the contract in advance by the master. The Magistrate of the First Class dealt with the case summarily and dismissed it on the merits. The matter same up before the Sessions Judge who raised the question whether the proceeding was a proper one, on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case summarily. The learned Sessions Judge has set out his view in a closely reasoned statement referring to the authorities, and the Magistrate who tried the case has submitted his explanation in an equally clear statement, maintaining his original view that he had jurisdiction to dispose of the case summarily. The question turns upon the interpretation to be given to S...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubar Dayal and Durga Prasad Vs. Strauss and Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All279
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This appeal and the connected revision No 49 of 1920, are brought against an order of the District Judge of Cawnpore, dated the 21st of February, 1920. On the 27th of August, 1919, ho had stayed a suit upon the ground that the parties had submitted the matter to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the contract between them. In the meanwhile an arbitrator had been appointed, an award had been made, and a decree passed in pursuance of the award. For some reason or another the present respondents made an application on the 21st of February to remove the stay of the 27th of August. The learned Judge obviously felt great difficulty about it and with considerable reluctance finally made an order removing the stay which he himself had granted, the effect of which was to revive the suit, although the matter had been disposed of according to law by arbitration. The defendant appeals from that order, In support of the learned Judge's order it is suggested that in...
Tag this Judgment!Strauss and Co. Ld. Vs. Raghubar Dayal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All275; 59Ind.Cas.784
1. This appeal and the connected Revision No. 49 of 1920 are brought against an order of the District Judge of Cawnpore, dated the 21st of February 1920.2. On the 27th of August 1919 he had stayed a suit upon the ground that the parties had submitted the matter to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the contract between them. In the meanwhile, an arbitrator had been appointed, an award had been made, and a decree passed in pursuance of the award. For some reason or another the present respondents made an application on the 21st of February to remove the stay of the 27th August. The learned Judge obviously felt great difficulty about it and, with considerable reluctance, finally made an order removing the stay which he himself had granted, the effect of which was to revive the suit, although the matter had been disposed of according to law by arbitration. The defendant appeals from that order. In support of the learned Judge's order it is suggested that, in any event, even in a ...
Tag this Judgment!Karan Singh Vs. Ishtiaq HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All312; (1921)ILR43All268; 61Ind.Cas.376
Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought under the following circumstances.2. One Ashfaq Husain who is now represented by the defendants respondents mortgaged his zamindari property under three mortgages. The first of these was executed in favour of Khurshed-un-nissa and others in 1884. The other two which also related to the same property were executed in 1887 in favour of Sheo Prasad, who was represented by Mohabbat Bahadur and others, Both sets of mortgagees brought suits upon their mortgages in 1910 and obtained decrees for sale; neither mortgagee was made a party to the suit of the other. Khurshed-un-nissa put her decree into execution and on the 20th of June, 1912, she caused the mortgaged property to be sold by auction and the present plaintiff purchased it for Rs. 14,250. The amount of the mortgage held by Khurshed-un-nissa was discharged in full out of the sale proceeds and there was a surplus of Rs 9,000 and odd w...
Tag this Judgment!Drigbijai Singh Vs. Mahadeo Prasad and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All272
Piggott, J.1. The facts out of which these two connected second appeals arise may conveniently be stated as follows: Raja Drigbijai Singh, the plaintiff respondent in this Court, employed one Lala Manni Lal as a contractor to build a house for him. It has never been denied that on a settlement of accounts some money would be found due to Manni Lal from the Raja in consequence of the performance of this contract, but there was a very decided difference of opinion between the parties concerned as to the amount so due. In the meantime Manni Lal seems to have got into financial difficulties. At any rate we know that more than one decree was in execution against him and that he was not prepared to pay up even the small amounts involved in the two decrees which will be presently referred to. The holder of one of these decrees was Mahadeo Prasad, the appellant in Second Appeal No. 1399 of 1917. He took out execution and applied to the execution court, that of the Munsif of Allahabad, to attac...
Tag this Judgment!Chaudhri Mahadeo Prasad Vs. Raja Dirgbijai Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All81(1); 60Ind.Cas.881
Piggott, J.1. The fasts out of which these two connected second appeals arise may conveniently be stated as follows: Raja Dirgbijai Singh, the plaintiff-respondent in this Court, employed one Lala Manna Lal as a contractor to build a house for him. It has have been denied that, on a settlement of accounts, soma money would be found due to Manni Lal from the Raja in consequence of the performance of this contract, but there was a very decided difference of opinion between the parties concerned as to the amount so due. In the meantime, Manni Lal seems to have got into financial difficulties. At any rate, we know that more than one degree was in execution against him and that he was not prepared to pay up even the small amounts involved in the two decrees which will be presently referred to. The holder of one of these decrees was Mahadeo Prasad, the appellant in Second Appeal No. 1399 of 1917. He took out execution and applied to the Execution Court, that of the Munsif of Allahabad, to at...
Tag this Judgment!Shahzadi Begam Vs. Muhammad Ibrahim and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All310; (1921)ILR43All266
Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Musammat Shahzadi Begam for recovery of her legal share in the estate of her deceased father Baqar Ali. The defendants to the suit were her brother Muhammad Ibrahim and her sisters or their legal representatives. The suit was mainly defended by the brother, who alleged that part of the property claimed was waqf property, that part was property which exclusively belonged to him, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to obtain any share in the waqf property. A document was produced, alleged to have been executed by one Wilayat Ali, who was the ancestor of Baqar Ali, and under which certain property was declared to be waqf. In the course of the trial the parties came to terms, and a compromise was filed on 13th of September, 1917. This compromise is printed at page 27 of the paper book. The compromise dealt with all the property in dispute, which consisted of house property, shops, some government...
Tag this Judgment!Ballu Mal and anr. Vs. Ram Kishan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All311; (1921)ILR43All263
Pramada Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a house in the City of Cawnpore which belonged at one time to one Janki Prasad. The plaintiffs claim as reversionary heirs to Janki Prasad and in this suit they have impleaded the heirs of one Mathu, sister's son of Janki Prasad, who entered into possession of the house on the death of Janki Prasad in 1909 and who made a mortgage in favour of Ram Kishan, respondent. Certain persons who laid claim to this house as heirs of Mathu have also been made parties. The contesting defendant, who is the only person who has appeared in this appeal, is Ram Kishan, the mortgagee. A large number of questions were raised in defence, but for the purposes of this appeal it is not necessary to discuss them in detail. All of them have been found against the defendant respondent except a plea raised by him under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, namely, that he is a bond, fide transferee for value and his m...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Shahzadi Begam Vs. Sheikh Muhammad Ibrahim and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.787
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Musammat Shabzadi Begam for recovery of her legal share in the estate of her deceased father, Baqar Ali. The defendants to the suit were her brother, Muhammad Ibrahim, and her sisters, or legal representatives. The suit was mainly defended by the brother who alleged that part of the property claimed was wakf property; that part was property which exclusively belonged to him, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to obtain any share in the wakf property. A document was produced alleged to have been executed by one Wilayat Ali, who was the ancestor of Baqar Ali, and under which certain property was declared to be wakf. In the course of the trial the parties came to terms and a compromise was filed on the 13th of September 1917. This compromise is printed at page 27 of the paper book. The compromise dealt with all the property in dispute which consisted of house property, shops, some Government securities and money deposited in a Bank and o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »