Allahabad Court March 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.
Sushil Chandra Das and Company Vs. Sukhamal, Bansidhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All219; (1922)ILR44All472
Piggott, J.1. These are connected applications to file two awards, purporting to be made on the 12th of November, 1,920, at the close of proceedings taken under the Indian Arbitration Act in connection with a trade dispute between two firms. It is one of a number of connected applications which would, in the ordinary course of things, have been filed in the court of the District Judge of Cawnpore, but were transferred to this Court with the consent of the parties, to be disposed of in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, because of the importance to the commercial community of some of the questions involved.2. The firm in whose favour the awards have been made, that of Sushil Chandra Das & Co., which may conveniently be spoken of as the plaintiff firm, are importers of piece-goods from Manchester. The defendant firm, that of Sukhamal, Bansidhar, deals in the said goods, but does not import on its own account. On the 24th of August, 1918, the defendant firm placed in the hands of ...
Kedarnath Moti Lal Vs. Messrs. Sukhamal Bansidhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.691
Piggott, J.1. This is an application to file an award, dated November 22nd, 1920, made in connection with a trade dispute between two firms upon a private submission and an arbitration conducted without the intervention of the Court. The defendant-firm is the same as in eases Nos. 1 and 2 to day decided by us, and the facts of the dispute are broadly similar. Here also, the award is that' of an umpire appointed by the Committee of the Delhi Piece Goods Association after the arbitrators chosen by the parties had failed to agree. There are two points upon which the present case is distinguishable from those above referred to:(i) The order placed by the defendant-firm with the plaintiff firm was embodied in seven indents; the letters of acceptance in respect of two of these are not forthcoming, but in each of the remaining five letters the form of words employed is as follows:'We have to intimate that your indents have been accepted by wire and the same are subject to revision and confirm...
Munnu Lal, Minor, Through Ram Lal Vs. Raja Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All100; 66Ind.Cas.899
1. This suit was brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that on the death of his mother he will be entitled to get a two-anna share in Mauza Malhipur.2. There were three brothers, Sita Ram, Mata Din and Ram Lochan, the property in suit belonging to Ram Lochan. The plaintiff alleged that Ram Lochan was separate from his brothers. Ram Lochan died, the plaintiff said, 15 years ago, but it has been found that he died 27 years ago. Ha left him surviving a daughter, Musammat Bilasi. On the finding of the First Court that Ram Lochan was separate, she was his heir. The plaintiff is her son and presumptive heir.3. In the plaint it is alleged, that after the tenth of Ram Lochan, Musammat Bilasi went to reside in Kulu and the names of Ram Lochan's brothers were entered in the revenue papers in place of Ram Lochan.4. The plaint goes on to say:---'These brothers used to go to Kulu frequently and assured the plaintiff's mother that her property was safe. They also used to pay every year differen...
B. Sashil Chandra Das Vs. Sakhamal Bansidhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.487
Piggott, J.1. These are connected applications to file two awards, purporting to be made on November 12th, 1920 at the close of proceedings taken under the Indian Arbitration Act in connection with a trade dispute between two firms, It is one of a number of connected applications which would, in the ordinary course of things, have been filed in the Court of the District Judge of Cawnpore; but ware transferred to this Court with the consent of the parties to be disposed of in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, because of the importance to the commercial community of some of the questions involved.2. The firm in whose favour the awards have been made, that of Sushil Chandra Das & Co., which may conveniently be spoken of as the plaintiff firm are importers of piece goods from Manchester. The defendant firm, that of Sakha Mal-Bansi Dhar deals in the said goods but does not import on its own account. On August 21th, 1918 the defendant firm placed in the hands of the plaintiff firm t...
Shiam Sunder Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All469; 66Ind.Cas.177
1. Sham Sunder, a sonar, was convicted of an offense under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code by a Magistrate of the First Class, and his appeal was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad. He comes here in revision. The only ground taken is, that the judgment of the Appellate Court itself contains sufficient grounds for holding that there is a reasonable doubt in the case. The practice of this Court has long been not to interfere in criminal revision on facts found by the lower Appellate Court, but the rule is not an absolute one. The revision has been admitted by a very experienced Judge of this Court and the record is before me, and I have to satisfy myself as to 'the propriety of the finding.'2. To put it very briefly, the case for the prosecution was that Mul Chand, who keeps a medicine shop in the Bazar of Farrukhabad, was anxious to have some jewellery repaired for a ceremony which was to take place on the 30th of November last at his house, and, therefore, sent ...
Rao Narsingh Rao Vs. Beti Maha Lakshmi Bai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All470; 66Ind.Cas.902
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1 This is an application by Rao Narsingh Rao for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. The case is a very important one and the position of the applicant is such as to enlist the sympathy of every one acquainted with his history.3. Rao Narsing Rao commenced an action against one Rani Kishori on the allegation that he was entitled to property of the value of upwards of fifty lakhs because he was the son of Rao Balwant Singh and Musammat Dunaju. Rao Balwant Singh and Musammat Dunaju were husband and wife. His allegation that he was the son of Musammat Dunaju was the main essential fact to be proved. The Rani Kishori denied it and set up that Rao Narsingh Rao was in fact the son of one Shekhar Singh. In the lower court and here Rao Narsingh Rao failed to prove that Musammat Dunaju was his mother, and there are thus two concurrent findings against him.4. We have listened very carefully to Mr. Nihal Chand's arguments with complete re...
Sheo Prasad Vs. Sri Pal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All167; 66Ind.Cas.81
1. This appeal arisen out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for the recovery of Rs.9,500, principal and interest, on the following facts:2. It appears that one Musammat Sona, the widow of Girdbari Lal, was in possession of her husband's estate after his death, consisting of certain shares in two villages sailed. Nagla Achal and Nagla Pachauni. On the 13th September 1888 she excreted a deed of mortgage in respect of the share in Nagla Achal in lien of Rs, 600 in favour of Sri Pal. She died in 1889. On the 21st July 1890 Megh Raj and Sant Lal, the reversioners of Girdhari Lal, executed a simple mortgage for Rs. 2,000 in favour of Ganga Ram. The property bypothesated in the said deed was the share in Nagla Pachauni. The mortgagors left Rs. 692 with Ganga Ram, the mortgagee, for payment to Sri Pal. On the 4th August 1909 Sri Pal sued to recover his mortgage-money. He brought a suit against Megh Raj and the heirs of Sant Lal, the latter having died. Banarsi Lal had, prior to the ...
Sarabjit Mal Vs. Ram Khelawan Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.714
1. The plaintiffs, the defend, ants and others are recorded co sharers in Taluqa Sultanpur in the Azamgarh District. Plot No. 1871/2 is occupied and cultivated by the plaintiffs, Parmeshar Mal, father of the present defendant, Ram Khelawan Mal, instituted a suit against the plaintiffs in 1915 asserting that he was one of the proprietors in the plot in question and that Sarabjit Mal, one of the plaintiffs, was a tenant. Sarabjit Mal in that suit asserted proprietary title. The suit was decreed against him for six annas, arrears of rent, The suit was in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the Second Class. In 1917 the defendant, Ram Khelawan Mal, appears to have obtained an ex parts decree for rent in respect of the same plot in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the Second Class against the plaintiffs, In 1919 the defendant then sued to eject the plaintiffs from this plot under Section 58 of the Tenancy Act, The plaintiffs asserting their proprietary title, the Assistant Collecto...
Shiam Saran Vs. Banarsi Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All192
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was for the redemption of a mortgage Of the 7th of July 1891, the debt secured by which amounted to Rs. 1,357.4 0. The plaintiff admitted that the integrity of the mortgage had been broken up and that the first three defendants, impleaded as the heirs of the original mortgagee, have a squired one-half of the equity of redemption. He asserted himself to be the owner of 7/8ths of the remaining half share in the equity of redemption and sued to redeem the mortgage in respect of the said half share, that is to say, so much of the mortgage as affected property of which the mortgagee had net become the owner. He impleaded in the array of defandants all persons who could possibly be regarded as having a claim to any share in the equity of redemption along with himself. The majority of the defendants so impleaded supported the plaintiff's claim and asked that his suit might be decreed as brought.2. One defendant, by name Ehean Beg, who was admitted b...
Jodhi Ram Vs. Musammat Kaunsilla and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.521
Rives, J.1. This appeal arises cat of a suit brought by co-sharers against a Lambardar for profits of 1323 Fasli plus arrears of 1321 and 13 2 collected in the year 1323. In the plaint there is no allegation whatsoever of negligence against the Lambardar but in the claim at the foot of the plaint the decree sought for is bared on the gross rental for 1323 Fasli plus the arrears of 1321 and 1322 collected in the year 1323. The only defence with which we are now concerned is raised in the second paragraph of the written statement and that appears to have been made to meet the claim on the gross rental. It is there stated; 'The claim for profits on the basis of gross rental is not correct. It ought to be on the basis of realisation'. The Trial Court on these pleadings fixed an issue 'should profits be allowed on jamabandi or collections?'. It held that no negligence had been proved against the Lambardar within the meaning of Section 164(2) of the Tenancy Act. It therefore, decided to give...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »