Allahabad Court May 1921 Judgments
Khadim Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All94; 63Ind.Cas.414
Walsh, J.1. This is an unusual case. The applicant who applies for bail is charged under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, which of course is a very serious matter, namely, committing forgery for the purpose, of cheating. According to an imperfect affidavit which is before me, and which has been filed not strictly in accordance with the Rules of the Court but which has been made by the brother of the applicant and substantially sets out the facts so far as is necessary for this application, the applicant is accused of having put forward a nomination paper for the election of himself as a Municipal Commissioner, containing the alleged signatures of four persons who did not in fact sign the paper or authorise their signatures, and whose signatures must either have been known to the applicant to be forged or have been written by himself. It is alleged in the affidavit that the nomination paper was filed on the 15th April 1921 and that on the 18th April the accused withdrew his candida...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhpal Singh Vs. Haji Abdur Rahman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All159; 63Ind.Cas.889
1. This appeal arises out of a pre emption suit. Sukhpal Singh and Abdur Rahmai brought two rival pre-emption suits in respect to the same sale. The Court of first instance passed a decree awarding to Sukhpal Singh the prior right of pre-emption and directing him, to use the words of the decree, to deposit the amount to the credit of the vendees within 30 days. The decree was passed on the 5th of May 1917. On the 2nd of June the vendees enme into Court and certified to the Court that they had received payment of the amount due from Sukhpal Singh The money was not actually paid into Court. Thereupon Abdur Rahman paid the amount-into Court after the 4th of June and applied to the Court for execution of the decree and for possession. Accordingly he was placed in possession. Sukhpal Singh at once applied to the Court objecting to this and asked that the order be set aside and that he be restored to possession. The Court held that as the money had not been paid into Court by Sukhpal Singh, ...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Kirpa Ram Sita Ram Vs. Firm Mangal Sen Bishan Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All367; 65Ind.Cas.93
ORDER1. This suit was brought in Cawnpore against three persons who were alleged to be carrying on business in Cawnpore. They were sued as defendants upon the record by the following description: Lala Mangal Sen, Bishan Mal alias Bishambhar Nath and Banarsi Das, proprietors of the firm of Banarsi Das and Co., Delhi, and of Mangal Sen Bishambhar Nath of Cawnpore at present residing at Delhi. The question was raised at once, and the learned Judge decided in favour of the defendants, that the Cawnpore Court had no jurisdiction. The plaintiff contended that the contract was both made and to be performed in Cawnpore. The learned Judge decided that question against him We think there is nothing in this point. We have seen the contract. It was clearly made in Delhi with the firm Banarsi Das of Delhi. That, however, does not dispose of the question of jurisdiction. Section 20, Civil Procedure Code, provides that a Suit may be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Autar Singh Vs. Bhairon Ghulam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All660
Lindsay, J.1. These two matters have been consolidated and heard together by a Full Bench in order to decide the legality and the scope of the rules which this High Court has made with reference to the necessity of filing with the memorandum of appeal in a second appeal, a copy of the first court's judgment.2. The facts of the two cases do not materially differ. In Bhairon Ghutam v. Ram Autar Singh, the lower appellate court's judgment, against which it is sought to appeal, was dated the 16th of July, 1920. The memorandum of appeal was presented to this Court on the 25th day of October, 1920, the first day on which the Court was open after the long vacation and the last day prescribed by law for presenting or preferring the appeal. It was accompanied by a copy of the decree and of the lower court's judgment but by no copy of the first court's judgment. The appellant had been supplied with this as long ago as the 20th of August, 1920, but he did not file it until the 16th of December, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Bhairon Ghulam and ors. Vs. Ram Autar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All23; 63Ind.Cas.338
Walsh, J.1. These two matters have been consolidated and heard together by a Full Bench in order to decide the legality and the scope of the Rules which this High Court has made with reference to the necessity of filing, with the memorandum of appeal in a second appeal, a copy of the first Court's judgment.2. The facts of the two cases do not materially differ In Bhairon Ghulam v. Ram Autar Singh, the lower Appellate Court's judgment against which it is sought to appeal was dated the 16th July 1920. The memorandum of appeal was presented to this Court on the 25th day of October 1920, the first day on which the Court was open after the long vacation and the last day prescribed by law for presenting or preferring the appeal. It was accompanied by a copy of the decree and of the lower Court's judgment but by no copy of the first Court's judgment. The appellant had been supplied with this as long ago as the 20th August 1920, but he did not file it until 16th December 1920, when notice was ...
Tag this Judgment!Jamal Fatima Vs. Muhammad Muin-ud-dIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All650
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. The question for consideration in this case is whether an ante-nuptial agreement made between a lady and her prospective husband and her prospective father-in-law, providing for the payment of a certain maintenance in the event of future dissensions between her and her prospective husband, is good in law and enforceable after her divorce or is opposed to public policy and void. The courts below found that the agreement was not opposed to public policy and granted the plaintiff a decree for the amount claimed by her. It appears that Mehdi Hasan, the husband of the plaintiff, had married twice before, and on each occasion he seems to have ill-treated his wife. The father of the plaintiff was, therefore, naturally anxious that something should be done in order to protect his daughter from similar ill-treatment and to secure for her a maintenance allowance in case his daughter and Mehdi Hasan could not live happily together. The agreement in question provide...
Tag this Judgment!Bisheshwar Dayal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.452
Walsh, J.1. This is an application ii revision against an order made by a Firs Class Magistrate under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, directing the applicant Bisheshwar Dayal, to give security in Rs. 300 or to be detained in custody for three years. The cases in which this Court can, I think, interfere in revision on questions of fast, particularly under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, are rare. On the other hand the administration of Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, has to be very carefully watched. If there is clear and apparently credible evidence in support of the prosecution case and the decision has been arrived at in a well-balanced judgment, speaking for myself, I decline to interfere. Where evidence has been misunderstood or ignored, difficulties have not been seen, or the Rules of evidence have not been followed, it becomes a very difficult matter and if the judgment itself does not commend itself to the Appellate Court, one is inclined to look narrowly at th...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Muin-ud-dIn and anr. Vs. Musammat Jamal Fatima
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All152; 63Ind.Cas.883
1. The question for consideration in this case is whether an ante-nuptial agreement made between a lady and her prospective husband and her prospective father-in-law, providing for the payment of a certain maintenance in the event of future dissensions between her and her prospective husband, is good in law and enforceable after her divorce or is opposed to public policy and void. The Courts below found that the agreement was not opposed to public policy and granted the plaintiff a decree for the account claimed by her. It appears that Mehdi Hasan, the husband of the plaintiff, had married twice before and to each occasion he seems to have ill treated his wife. The father of the plaintiff was, therefore, naturally anxious that something should be done in order to protect his daughter from similar ill-treatment and to secure for her a maintenance allow an in case His daughter and Mehdi Hasan could not live happily together. The agreement in question provided that in case of dissension o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwant Kishore Vs. Sanwal Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All246; 61Ind.Cas.802
P.C. Banerji, J.1. In my opinion the view taken by the Court below is right. In this case a Receiver was appointed and he applied to the Court under Section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for the taking of proceedings against the insolvent for alleged malpractices. The Court went into the matter and decided in favour of the insolvent and refused to take action against him. From this order the Receiver appealed to the District Judge, as the order of the Court of first instance was an order of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes invested with insolvency jurisdiction.2. The learned Judge has held that the Receiver is not an aggrieved party and is not, therefore, entitled to appeal. I agree with that view. The Receiver is not an aggrieved party and does not represent the Crown. His position is that of representative of the creditors. It has been held in Ladu Ram v. Mahabir Prasad 37 Ind. Cas. 996 : 15 A.L.J. 31 : 39 A. 171, that a creditor is not an aggrieved party and is not entit...
Tag this Judgment!Parbhu Dayal Vs. Ram Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All655
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. The plaintiff is the son of Ajudhia Prasad and seeks to impeach the sale of certain property, effected by the latter in favour of Ram Sahai, Musammat Mathura, the wife of Ram Sahai, and Nathu Ram, a minor relative of theirs, on the 22nd of April, 1913. The sale was effected in lieu of Rs. 1,500, out of which Rs. 238 were to be credited towards certain prior oral debts, Rs. 312 were to be credited towards a prior unregistered bond of the 25th of February, 1913, and Rs. 950 were paid before the sub-registrar.2. The property sold was the ancestral property of the family to which the plaintiff and his father, Ajudhia Prasad, belong. The allegation of the plaintiff was that the sale in question was made without any legal necessity, and that it was fictitious and without consideration. The court of first instance found that out of the sum of Rs. 950 paid before the sub-registrar, Rs. 272 had been taken for legal necessity, that the previous debts specified in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »