Allahabad Court August 1921 Judgments
Shankar Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All264; 65Ind.Cas.433
Lindsay, J.1. This is an application for revision on behalf of Shankar Lal, a Sub-Inspector of Police, who has been convicted on a charge of wrongful confinement and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300. Both the Courts below have found the charge proved. The facts may be briefly stated as follows: The applicant was the Sub-Inspector of Police at Kamalganj in the Farrukhabad District. It is said that on the 25th of October 1920 he wrongfully arrested and kept in confinement one Ram Ghulam, who is a liquor seller in the Kamalganj Bazar. The story which was put forward by the complainant was that on the evening of the 24th of October the Sub Inspector sent four constables to his liquor shop and demanded two bottles of liquor on credit. Ram Ghulam refused to supply the liquor because the Sub-Inspector owed him the price of ten or twelve bottles previously supplied, Ram Ghulam said that on his refusal the constables used some threats to him and said that they would see him. The next morning ...
Tag this Judgment!Juggan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All162; 65Ind.Cas.447
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a reference under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the District Magistrate of Meerut. It appears that while Baraut was a notified area, Juggan accused applied to the Notified Area Committee for permission to build a wall. On the 9th of January 1921 the Committee by a resolution ordered that a space of 9 1/2 feet should be left between the wall and an adjoining drain. On objections having been raised by the accused and a report having been sailed for, the Committee by a second resolution, dated the 16th February 1921, modified its previous order and reduced the width of the open space from 9 1/2 feet to 5 feet. The accused, however, built the wall without leaving the required space of 5 feet. The Notified Area Committee accordingly on the 26th of March 1921 issued a notice to him to remove the wall within fifteen days. After this, the notified area was converted into a Municipality with effect from the 1st of April 1921. The accused replied to the not...
Tag this Judgment!Sunehri and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1921
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.202
Lindsay, J.1. The first ground taken in this revision is that the judgment of the Appellate Court is very perfunctory. That ground, in my opinion, is a good ground. I must set aside the orders of the District Magistrate and send the case back for re-trial and for proper consideration of the evidence. The case is a case under station 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 42 witnesses were examined for the prosecution and 106 witnesses for the defence. The learned District Magistrate has disposed of the appeal in a few lines and has only made some general observations upon the volume of evidence which was put before him. This is not a proper way of disposing of an appeal of this kind and the learned District Magistrate's judgment is not in accordance with law. The order is set aside and the case is sent back for re-trial and for the recording of a proper judgment....
Tag this Judgment!Jai Deo Vs. Union Indian Sugar Mills Company Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All151
Walsh and Wallach, JJ.1. This is a simple matter. Certain property, including the shares in question in a limited liability company known as the Union Indian Sugar Mills Co., Ltd., having its registered office in Cawnpore, was held by a family, jointly. It is alleged by one Debi Dat, who happens to be at this time the managing director of the company, with of course a commanding influence in the management of its affairs, that in the year 1918 he separated from the branches of the family whom we will refer to compendiously as the respondents, and that an elaborate partition was earned out, with the result that the shares now in dispute were made over to him as part of his share. Although the evidence of the fact has never been put on the record, either by sworn testimony or by formal admission so that one could say that it was properly on the record in the way in which we are accustomed to use that language, it appears from the surrounding circumstances that what he did was, having the...
Tag this Judgment!The Union Indian Sugar Mills Co., Ltd. Vs. Jai Deo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All258; 65Ind.Cas.291
1. This is a simple matter. Certain property, including the shares in question in a limited liability Company known as the Union Indian Sugar Mills Co., Ltd., having its registered office in Cawnpore, was held by a family jointly. It is alleged by one Debi Dat, who happens to be at this time the Managing Director of the Company, with of course a commanding influence in the management of its affairs, that in the year 1918 he separated from the branches of the family whom we will refer to compendiously as the respondents, and that an elaborate partition was carried out, with the result that the shares now, in dispute were made over to him as part or his share. Although the evidence of the fast has never been put on the record, either by sworn testimony or by formal admission, so that one could say that it was properly on the record in the way in which we are accustomed to use that language, it appears from the surrounding circumstances that what he did was, having the share certificates ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Phul Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All130
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the execution court under Order XXI, Rule 50, attaching the property of two young alleged partners, one of whom Phul Chand is dead, so that the order has been made against his heirs and the other of whom Suraj Karan is still a minor, by reason of their being, as I understand the judgment, members of a joint Hindu family and therefore members of the firm which undoubtedly had been carried on by their father Mahadeo Prasad and was afterwards undoubtedly actively carried on by his elder son Mangli Prasad on behalf of them as members of a joint family, if they continued joint, and on behalf of himself and any other person who was interested, if they were separate. The case seems to me an important one and by no means a simple one, although I take a very clear view of what our order ought to be. Unfortunately my brother and I do not agree in the view we take of the questions raised by the appeal, and according to the ordinary practice my...
Tag this Judgment!Soti Suraj Mal Vs. Than Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All352; (1922)ILR44All146; 64Ind.Cas.451
Gokul Prasad and Stuart, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff arising out of a suit for sale on a mortgage. The mortgage-deed in suit was executed on the 19th day of October, 1906. Sipahi Singh, defendant No. 1, was the mortgagor and one Ali Muhammad, who sold his rights subsequently to the plaintiff, was the mortgagee. The property mortgaged was all the mortgagor's interests and rights in 20 biswas zamindari of a certain village. The plaintiff alleged that at that time the defendant's name was entered over a 1 biswa, 4 1/2 biswansi share only, and this was mortgaged; that out of this a 6 1/2 biswansi share was sold at auction in execution of a decree on a prior mortgage. He, therefore, claimed the whole of the mortgage money from the remaining 18 biswansis odd. The last mentioned share was sold at auction in execution of a simple money decree and has been purchased by Mulaim Singh, defendant no. 3. Defendant No. 4, Than Singh, has been impleaded as a puisne mortgagee.2. The defenc...
Tag this Judgment!Phulchand and ors. Vs. Kandhya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All247; 65Ind.Cas.295
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the Execution Court under Order XXI, Rule 50, attaching the property of two young alleged partners, one of whom, Phul Chand is dead, so that the order has been made against his heirs, and the other of Whom Suraj Karan is still a minor, by reason of their being, as I understand the judgment, members of a joint Hindu family and, therefore, members of the firm which undoubtedly had been carried on by their father Mahadeo, Prasad and was afterwards undoubtedly actively carried on by his elder son Mangli Prasad on behalf of them as members of a joint family, if they continued joint, and on behalf of himself and any other person who was interested if they were separate. The case seems to me an important one and by no meant a simple one, although I take a very clear view of what our order ought to be. Unfortunately my brother and I do not agree in the view we take of the questions raised by the appeal, and according to the ordinary practic...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Singh and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All151; 64Ind.Cas.376
1. Ratan Singh, a hillman from the Almora district, is alleged to have murdered his wife, Naruli, in the village in which he lives on the night of the 26th of February 1921. Guman Singh, his father, is alleged to have discovered the fact of the murder directly after it was committed and to have intentionally omitted to give information in respect of it. A First Class Magistrate in the Almora district committed the father and the son jointly to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court convicted the son of murder and sentenced him to death, subject to confirmation by this Court, and sentenced the father to six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 202 of the Indian Penal Code. The case having come up before this Court in appeal and under reference for confirmation, our attention was drawn to the fact that a joint trial could only have been justified under the provisions of the law if the conditions of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were complied with. It cannot possibl...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeo Pandey Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All168; 64Ind.Cas.130
Stuart, J.1. I agree with the learned Sessions Judge and set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine, if paid, be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »