Allahabad Court January 1921 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.
Chiranji Singh and ors. Vs. Dharam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All173; (1921)ILR43All402
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. The question of law which arises in this case for decision is covered by a decision of a Divisional Bench in Muhammad Niaz Khan v. Jai Ram (1919) I.L.R. 41 All. 503 and also covered by a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Crowdy v. Reilly (1912) 17 C.W.N. 554. The ruling of the Madras High Court (1902) 13 M.L.J. 370 which has been mentioned is a very brief decision which gives no reasons. We prefer to follow the ruling of this Court, and of the Calcutta High Court which recommend themselves to us and we therefore allow this appeal and set aside the decree of the courts below. The case will have to go back to the court of first instance for trial on the merits, it having been dismissed by that court on a preliminary point law. We, therefore, order the record to be returned to that court with directions to restore it to its file on its original number and to proceed to hear and determine it according to law. Costa of this appeal will be costs in the ...
In Re: Qasim Ali, an Insolvent
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All406
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This appeal fails. We entirely agree with the finding of the learned District Judge. Indeed we cannot see how any other conclusion could have been arrived at. We agree with the reasons which he has given and we have nothing to add to them. We would merely say that a man in the position of an insolvent who has the means of ascertaining where property of his has been disposed of, even if he has not been actually a party to the making away with it, and who does not use the means, is just as guilty of concealment within the meaning of the Section as if he actively concealed the locality in which the property actually is. It is by no means clear from the conduct of the insolvent and his sons that the grain was not still in the dump at the time of the receiver's visit, and had not been made away with at all. These proceedings ought not to deter the receiver from taking such steps as are still open to him under the Act to recover the property from whomever it may be w...
Qasim Ali Vs. Emperor Through the District Judge of Saharanpur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.37
1. This appeal fails. We entirely agree with the finding of the learned District Judge, Indeed we cannot see how any other conclusion could have been arrived at. We agree with the reasons which he has given and we have nothing to add to them, We would merely say that a man in the position of an insolvent who has the means of ascertaining where property of his has been disposed of, even if he has not been actually a party to the making away with it, and who does not use the means, is just as guilty of concealment within the meaning of the section as if he actively concealed the locality in which the property actually is. It is by no means clear from the conduct of the insolvent and his sons that the grain was not still in the dump at the time of the Receiver's visit and had not been made away with at all. These proceedings ought not to deter the Receiver from taking such steps as are still open to him under the Act to recover the property from whomever it may be who has received it eith...
Bohra Bhupal Vs. Kundan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All45; 60Ind.Cas.846
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising oat of a suit for sale based upon two mortgage-deeds of the 26th of May 1913 and the 6th of December 1913 executed by the defendants, Gauri Shankar and Beni Prasad, for Rs., 600 and Rs. 300, respectively. The property mortgaged consisted of two houses. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim on the basis of the mortgage of the 6th of December 1913 and decreed the claim on the basis of the mortgage of the 26th of May 1913. The defendant alone appealed and on appeal the lower Appellate Court dismissed the claim also on the basis of the deed of the 26th of May 1913. The plaintiff has come here in second appeal and the contention is that the decision on the point of law raised in the Court below by that Court is incorrect and that on a true interpretation of the law the claim under the bond of 26th of May 1913 should have been decreed and the lower Appellate Court ought o have dismissed the appeal in respect thereto. We are concerned only wit...
Clement Robson and Company Vs. Sital Prasad and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All394
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. In this case an arbitration took place between Messrs. Clement Robson & Co., an English firm with a branch in Karachi, and an Indian firm known as Sital Prasad Sadhu Ram, of Muzaffarnagar and other places. An award was published in Karachi, on the 18th of December, 1918, and an application to file the award under Section 11 of the Indian Arbitration Act (IX of 1899), was made against the firm Sital Prasad Sadhu Ram, in the court of the Judicial Commissioner of Sind, and was disposed of by an order of the Additional Judicial Commissioner, dated the 3rd of March, directing the award to be filed. Both Sital Prasad and Sadhu Ram were served with notices of the application, and both appeared. Sital Prasad took the objection that he was not a partner. The Additional Judicial Commissioner, while observing that Sadhu Ram had signed the reference as sole proprietor of the firm, declined to deal with the questions as to what persons constituted the firm, and as to whethe...
B. Sital Prasad Vs. Clements Robson and Co. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All199(1); 61Ind.Cas.401
1. In this case an arbitration took place between Messrs. Clements Robson & Co., an English firm with a branch in Karachi, and an Indian firm, known as Sital Prasad Sadhu Rim, of Muzaffarnagar and other places. An award was published in Karachi, on 18th December 1918, and an application to file the award under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act (IX of 1899) was made against the firm, Sital Prasad Sadhu Ram, in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Sind, and was disposed of by an order of the Additional Judicial commissioner, dated the 3rd Marah, directing the award to be filed. Both Sital Prasad and Sadhu Ram were served with notices of the application, and both appeared, Sital Prasad took the objection that he was not a partner. The Additional Judicial commissioner, while observing that Sadhu Ram had Bigned the reference as sole proprietor of the firm, declined to deal with the questions as to what persons constituted the firm, and as to whether Sital Prasad was one of them, In tak...
Badri Das Vs. Shambhu Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All392
Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This was a suit for the demolition of certain constructions alleged to have been made by the defendant. It was decreed by the Munsif on the 26th of February, 1917. On the 2nd of April, 1917, the defendant preferred an appeal to the District Judge from the decree of the court of first instance. The memorandum of appeal was signed and presented by two pleaders, who held a vakalatnamah, in the body of which their names were not mentioned but at the foot of which there was an acceptance of the vakalatnamah by both the pleaders.- When the appeal came on for hearing an objection was taken to the [effect that as the names of the pleaders had not been mentioned in the body of the vakalatnamah the presentation of the appeal by those pleaders was an invalid presentation and the appeal could not be entertained. Two days before the date on which the appeal was decided a petition was filed by the appellant supported by an affidavit in which he stated t...
Shambhu Nath Vs. Lala Badri Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All210(1); 61Ind.Cas.410
1. This was a suit for the demolition of a certain construction alleged to have been made by the defendant. It was decreed by the Music on the 26th of February It 1917. On the 2nd of April 1917 the defendant preferred an appeal to the Distrait Judge from the decree of the Court of first instance. The memorandum of appeal was danced and presented by two Pleaders who held a vakulatnarna, in the bady of whish their names were not mentioned but at the foist of which there was an acceptance of the vakalainama by both the Pleaders. When the appeal case on for hearing en objection was taken to the fleet that as the names of the Pleaders had not been mentioned in the body of the vakalainama the presentation of the appeal by those Pleaders was an invalid presentation and the appeal could not be entertained. Two days before the date on which the appeal was decided, a petition was filed by the appellant supported by an affidavit in which he stated that the names of the Pleaders had been omitted f...
Hikmat Ullah Khan Vs. Abdul Azim Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All218; 61Ind.Cas.412
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff--appellant to enforce a mortgage. The original mortgage--deed was not produced with the plaint but it was alleged that it had been last. The suit was brought against the mortgagor, Abdul Azim Khan, who is now dead, but subsequently to the institution of it, and before the case went to trial the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 were added as parties on the ground that they were subsequent transferees of the mortgaged property. Both sets of defendants filed written statements. Abdul Azim Khan stated that the amount of the mortgage had been discharged and the mortgage bond had been returned to him with an endorsement on it. He produced a document which, he alleged, was the mortgage--deed but it was found by the Court of first instance and also by the lower Appellate Court that the document which was produced by Abdul Azim Khan was a forgery, and that the seal of the Sub--Registrar which it bears is not the seal of the Sub--Registrar's Off...
Rahmatullah Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.523
Grimwood Mears, C.J.1. It appears in this case hat the two sureties were rejected on the ground that they were residents of Bijnour, which is some eleven miles away from the place of residence of the accused. The Deputy Magistrate took what is a not inreasonable ground, that they being so as away would be unable to exercise any control over him. However, one of them, lamed Prohit Basant Lal, who is a Zemindar of the village in which the accused liver, as expressed his willingness to take the not into his service and to look after him luring the period under which he is bound to be of good behaviour. That, of course, s not an undertaking that the Court can inforce and if it transpired later, on an inquiry, that that was not a genuine offer the accused was not taken into the service of the surety, that might be a ground for re-opening the proceedings, But the whole, having regard to al] the circumstances of the case, and regarding as I do the offer of Basant Lal as genninp, I Feel inclin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »