Allahabad Court July 1920 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.
Emperor Vs. Madan Mohan Nath Raina
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All277; (1921)ILR43All123
Tudball, J.1. The applicant, Pandit Madan Mohan Nath Raina, has been convicted under Sections 8 and 16 of Act No. VIII of 1914, an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles in British India. He has been fined Re. 1. The facts are not in dispute. The contention is that, on the actual facts, no offence has been committed under Sections 8 and 16 of the Act. The facts are briefly as follows: Mr. Raina was travelling along the road on a motor cycle when he was stopped by a police sergeant and asked to show his driving licence. It was not in his possession at that time. He asked the sergeant to wait for five minutes so that ho might go home and bring it, but the sergeant declined. Upon this the sergeant took down his name and address and reported the matter to the Magistrate. The answer to the question depends upon the meaning of Section 8 of the Act which runs as follows: 'The driver of a motor vehicle shall produce his licence upon demand by any police officer,' The c...
Tej Singh and ors. Vs. Chhattar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All104
Walsh and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. Tins is a defendants appeal against a decree setting aside a decree the former suit was brought on a bond against the members of a joint Hindu family by the defendants, who obtained the decree. The suit was brought against the members of the family, including the karta or managing member, and also the other adult members, and also their minor brothers who were sued by name in their individual capacity. With regard to the minors, the following steps were taken. With reference to certain minor members of the family notice was issued by the then plaintiffs, defendants to the present suit, to one Gulab to show cause why he should not be appointed their guardian, and with reference to the other minor members, a similar notice was issued to one Jamna Das. These two persons did not give any express consent. On the other hand, they did not refuse. They remained silent. The court appointed them guardians. They were already themselves parties to the suit as defendan...
Lakshmi Ram Jani and ors. Vs. Harakh Ram Jani and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All108
Grimwood Mears, Kt. C.J. and Ryves, J.1. The parties to this litigation are members of the same family. In 1911 a dispute arose and it was decided to submit all matters in controversy to arbitration out of court. On the 21st of April, 1913, the arbitrator made his award. The history of what occurred in the interval between these two years is fully staled in the judgment of this Court in Hari Kunwar v. Lukhmi Ram Jani (1915) I.L.R. 368 All. 380, and we shall have to refer to that decision later on. Within six months of the award being made, two of the plaintiffs applied to the Subordinate Judge, under paragraph 20 of the second schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, to have the award filed. The court took appropriate action under that paragraph and issued notice to the other side. They appeared and objected, but their objections were overruled and the court passed an order under paragraph 21 of the schedule for filing the award and ordered a decree to be prepared in accordance with it...
Chhatter Singh and anr. Vs. Tej Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All393; 59Ind.Cas.671
1. This is a defendants' appeal against a decree setting aside a decree. The former suit was brought on a bond against the members of a joint Hindu family by the defendants who obtained the decree. The suit was brought against the members of the family including the karta or managing member and also the other adult members and also their minor brothers, who were sued by name in their individual capacity. With regard to the minors the following steps were taken. With reference to certain minor members of the family notice WAS issued by the then plaintiffs defendants to the present suit, to one Gulab to show cause why he should not be appointed their guardian, and, with reference to the other minor members, a similar notice was issued to one Jamna Das. These two persons did not give any express consent. On the other hand, they did not refuse. They remained silent. The Court appointed them guardians. They were already themselves parties to the suit as defendants. They were, as has already...
Harakh Ram Jani and anr. Vs. Lakshmi Ram Jani and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All384; 60Ind.Cas.626
1. The parties to this litigation are members of the same family. In 1911 a dispute arose and it was decided to submit all matters in controversy to arbitration out of Court. On the 21st of April 1913 the arbitrator made his award. The history of what occurred in the interval between these two years is fully stated in the judgment of this Court in Hari Kunwar v. Lakhmi Ram Jani 35 Ind. Cas. 833 : 38 A. 380 : 14 A.L.J. 481, and we shall have to refer to that decision later on Within six months of the award being made, two of the plaintiffs applied to the Subordinate Judge, under Paragraph 20 of the second Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, to have the award filed. The Court took appropriate action under that paragraph and issued notice to the other side. They appeared and objected but their objections were overruled and the Court passed an order under Paragraph 21 of the Schedule for filing the award and ordered a decree to be prepared in accordance with its terms. From that order...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›