Allahabad Court January 1922 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.
Sita Ram Vs. Janki Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All200; (1922)ILR44All266; 65Ind.Cas.813
Piggott, Walsh and Lindsay, JJ.1. The case before us, whether it be described as a first appeal from order or as an application in revision, arises under the following circumstances:2. Janki Ram and others were the judgment-debtors under a certain decree. Certain house property, belonging either to Janki Ram or to all the judgment-debtors, was taken in execution of the decree and put up for sale. One Sita Ram took part in the auction sale and bid up to a sum of Rs. 5,060. This being the highest bid offered, it was accepted by the sale officer. Sita Ram then failed to make the deposit of 25 per cent. of the purchase-money which he was required to make by the rules. It being then late in the day the sale officer informed all the parties concerned, including any other bidders who were present at the time, that he would put up the property for sale again on the following morning. He did so, and that same property was purchased for a sum of Rs. 2,850. This was more than sufficient to satisf...
Mahomed Ismail Khan Vs. Hasan Ali Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All220; 79Ind.Cas.473
1. The plaintiff, Mohamad Ismail Khan, who has died since the institution of the suit and is now represented by his heirs, brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, to recover Rs. 9,000 odd by way of damages for breach of contract.2. There were two defendants in the case (1) Hasan Ali Khan (2) Najirulla Khan.3. Briefly put, the case for the plaintiff was that, on or about the 14th September 19.16, he entered into a contract with the first defendant for the purchase of a quantity of indigo at the rate of Rs. 200 per factory maund. The agreement between the parties was that the indigo should be delivered to the plaintiff about the end of October. The case for the plaintiff was that, on the 7th of November 1916, the defendant, Hasan Ali Khan, refused to give him delivery, thereby breaking the contract.4. It may be mentioned here that the seeond defendant was more or less a nominal defendant in the case. He is the servant of the first defendant and is said to have been a partn...
Mr. Mohamad Ismail Khan Vs. Mr. Hasan Ali Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.602
1. The plaintiff, Mohamad Ismail Khan, who has died since the institution of the suit and is now represented by his heirs, brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, to recover Rs. 9000 odd by way of damages for breach of contract.2. There were two defendants in the case (1) Hasan Ali Khan, (2) Nairulla Khan.3. Briefly put, the case for the plaintiff was that, on or about the 14th September 1916, he entered into a contract with the first defendant for the purchase of a quantity of indigo at the rate of Rs. 2(sic)0 per factory maund. The agreement between the parties was that the indigo should be delivered to the plaintiff about the end of October. The case for the plaintiff was that, on the 7th of November 19(sic)6, the defendant, Hasan Ali Khan, refused to give him delivery, thereby breaking the contract.4. It may be mentioned hare that the second defendant was more or less a nominal defendant in the case. He is the servant of the first defendant and is said to have been a...
H. Bevis and Co. Vs. Ram Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All72; (1922)ILR44All325
Piggott, J.1. This is a application in revision against an order of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore rejecting an application to have a suit restored, which had been dismissed for non-appearance on the part of the plaintiff when the suit was called on for hearing. The facts alleged by the plaintiff have not been controverted, either by affidavit of the opposite party, or by anything placed on record by the presiding Judge himself. I am entitled, therefore, to assume that those facts are admitted. The suit in question was down for hearing on the 3rd of March, 1921. The plaintiff was personally present in court up to 5 p.m. At that hour the court was still engaged in hearing some other suit. The plaintiff's pleader name round to the court-room and some conversation took place between them, as a result of which both the plaintiff and his pleader left the court. The suit was subsequently called on. I gather from the record that the defendant was present, although the plai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›