Allahabad Court August 1920 Judgments
Sheo Balak Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All303; 59Ind.Cas.369
Gokul Prasad, J.1. The circumstances under which this application arises are rather lengthy and of a peculiar nature. It appears that one Sukhnandan, who was the lambardar of a village, paid up the Government revenue due from Musammat Dularia, one of the so-sharers. The accused is said to be her sarbarahkar or manager. Sukhanandan applied under Section 184 of the Land Revenue Act and got an ex parte order for the attachment of the property of the applicant. The applicant who had got information of this order applied on the 18th of March 1920 to the Naib-Tahsildar that the order of attachment was bad, inasmuch as he had nothing to do with Musammat Dularia. The Naib Tahsildar forwarded the application to the Deputy Collector for orders. On the 25th of March 1920 the Deputy Collector asked the Tahsildar for a report and stayed proceedings. This order reached the Tahsildar on the 27 the of March 1920. He informed the Naib-Tahsildar, the wasilbaqinawis and the qurqamin who are said to have ...
Tag this Judgment!Ziaullah Khan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All297; 59Ind.Cas.413
Gokul Prasad, J.1. The only point raised in this revision is that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to bind over the accused under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, inasmuch as the accused does not reside within the territorial limits of his jurisdiction. It is true that in the case of a Magistrate of the first Class one of the necessary requisites to authorise him to pass an order under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code is that the person informed against and the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended are within the local limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction. The contention on behalf of the applicants is that the accused are residents of a place outside such jurisdiction and, therefore, the Magistrate had no power to bind them over to keep the peace under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I cannot agree to this contention. The words 'is' and 'are' used in this section have been the subject of several cases and have been held ...
Tag this Judgment!Gokal Chand Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.321
Gokul Prasad, J.1. In this case the applicant has been convicted and sentenced for assaulting a public servant in the discharge of his duty. The case for the prosecution was that some camels were required for military purposes and the Tahsildar of Agra was instructed to secure some for selection and purchase. He sent a Jamadar with some peons to procure camels and persuade the owners to take them to the Tahsil for the purpose. It appears that near the shop of the accused, which is in Mohalla Tajganj, some camels were found standing and the Tahsil Chaprasis were persuading the owners to take the camels to the Tahsil. The owners were not willing to do so and a sort of argument ensued between them. On this the accused came down from his shop and struct one of the peons twice with a stick and the owners of the camels, taking advantage of the opportunity, disappeared, This story has been believed by the two Courts below and the accused has been convicted and sentenced to six weeks' rigorous...
Tag this Judgment!Molai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All306; 59Ind.Cas.411
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Sessions Judge of Allahabad, confirming an order of Mr. Radha Mohan, Magistrate First Class of Mirzapur, which has arisen under the following circumstances: Takawi loan was advanced to a certain number of persons on there joint and several responsibilities Except two, all the debtors repaid the advances made to them. So far as these two debtors were concerned, the Tahsildar made a report that efforts had been made to realise the loans but with no result. He solicited orders for the attachment of the property and obtained the necessary orders from the Magistrate of the district. He directed the qurkamin to make the attachment and the property was attached and put by the amin in charge of a shahna. The attachment having produced no effect, the amin was directed by the Tahsildar to sell the property and, when he arrived at the spot, it was reported by the shahna that the property (crops) was taken away by the ow...
Tag this Judgment!Bindeshri Dube and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All266; 59Ind.Cas.193
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of the District Magistrate of Basti directing, as he says in his judgment, a re trial of the applicants under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further says that the trial will take place in his Court.' Perhaps, the District Magistrate was thinking of a farther inquiry and has confused the re trial with what the law allows a further inquiry. Of course, he could not under the law direct a re trial by himself. The order, as it is put down, strictly speaking, is without jurisdiction, but taking the order to be as one passed under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure there are serious difficulties in the way of the Magistrate's order being confirmed. Before proceeding to discuss the circumstances of the case one has to bear in mind some of the general principles which have to be considered and applied in deciding a matter like the present one. One of those is that, if the circumstances and the evidence ar...
Tag this Judgment!The Allahabad Bank Limited Vs. Bhagwan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All220
Grimwood Mears, Kt. C.J. and Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, The suit out of which this application has arisen was brought 'by the Allahabad Bank, Limited, against the defendant applicant for recovery of Rs. 61,000 and odd on the basis of sixteen hundis drawn by one Seth Hansraj and alleged to have been accepted by the defendant's gomasta Babu Lal. Three were also several other suits brought by various plaintiffs against this very defendant on different hundis. These was one defence common to all the suits, namely, that Babu Lal was not authorized by the defendant applicant to sign or accept hundis for him. In some of these cases, the lower court, the Subordinate Judge of Agra, accepted the defendant's contention and in others it did not do so. The losing party appealed to this Court. By consent of parties the evidence given in each of the suits was considered as a whole and this Court was asked to decide the above question of fa...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Singh Vs. Bhawani Das and Bhagwan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All270(1); (1921)ILR43All223
Grimwood Mears, Kt. C.J. and Gokul Prasad, J.1. The valuation of this suit is below Rs. 6,000 and so is the valuation of the appeal to His Majesty in Council, but this Court has set aside the decree of the lower court. There was another suit on hundis in which the same question was raised between these very parties, namely, Privy Council Appeal No. 9 of 1920. It is true that in the lower court this suit was decided by a separate judgment, but in the appeal in this Court the evidence in the two suits was considered as a whole at the request of the parties, who are the same, and this Court came to a decision on the whole of the evidence in favour of the respondent. In the connected suit we have already given leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. It is contended that no permission lo appeal should be given because there is no question of law involved and the value is below Rs. 10,000 and that Order XLV, Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable. We do not agree with th...
Tag this Judgment!Thakar Bhagwan Singh Vs. Firm Bhawani Das Bhagwan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.794
1. The valuation of this suit is below Rs. 6,000 and so is the valuation of the appeal to His Majesty in Council, but this Court has set aside the decree of the lower Court. There was another suit on hundis in which the same question was raised between those very parties, namely, Privy Council Appeal No. 9 of 1920. It is true that in the lower Court this suit was decided by a separate judgment but in the appeal in this Court the evidence in the two suits was considered as a whole at the request of the parties who are the same and this Court came to a decision on the whole of the evidence in favour of the respondent. In the connected suit we have already given leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. It is contended that no permission to appeal should be given because there is no question of law involved and the value is below Rs. 10,000 and that Order XLV Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable. We do not agree with the last contention.2. An appeal is, after all, a pr...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Singh Vs. the Allahabad Bank Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All270; 64Ind.Cas.3
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The suit out of which this application has arisen was brought by the Allahabad Bank, Limited, against the defendant-applicant for recovery of Rs. 61,000 and odd on the basis of sixteen hundis drawn by one Seth Hansraj and alleged to have been accepted by the defendant's gomasta, Babu Lal. There were also several other suits brought by various plaintiffs against this very defendant on different hundis. There was one defense common to all the suits, namely, that Babu Lal was not authorised by the defendant-applicant to sign or accept hundis for him, In some of these cases, the lower Court, the Subordinate Judge of Agra, accepted the defendant's contention and in others it did not do so. The losing party appealed to this Court. By consent of parties the evidence given in each of the suits was considered as a whole and this Court was asked to decide the above question of fact on that evidence. In the result this Court...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hamid and ors. Vs. A. Curlender and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All216
Piggott and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The circumstances under which the present appeal has arisen are as follows:2. The plaintiff is the proprietor of a firm of bone dealers in Benares, called Abdul Hamid and Sons. The defendants Garry on a business in bones which goes by the name of 'The Bengal Bone Mills' in Calcutta. It appears that there hurl been dealings between the parties for some years, and in January, 1913, according to the plaintiff, his 1,654 were due to the plaintiff from the defendants' firm. The defenlants had also dealings in bones with the Muslim Bone Company, Limited, of Benares. The plaintiff's father was the manager of this company and, after his death, the plaintiff was elected the manager of the company. The plaintiff's allegation is that his firm, Abdul Hamid and Sons, had nothing whatever to do with the Muslim Bone Company, Limited, yet the defendants debited the plaintiff' with a sum of Rs. 1,497-7-6 alleged to have been due to the defendants from the aforesaid compa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »