Allahabad Court May 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.
Raghunandan Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All489; 67Ind.Cas.352
Lindsay, J.1. This case has been admitted on one ground only, namely, the propriety of the order passed by the Magistrate directing the accused to produce sureties who reside within a radius of five miles of the village of Omraha.2. This order of the Magistrate's is illegal. He has no authority to lay down any limits within which the sureties must reside. So much of the order, therefore, is set aside, and the Magistrate will be directed to receive and accept any proper sureties who may offer themselves on behalf of the accused. Let the record be returned....
Chetarpal Sharma Vs. Jagannath Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All178; 67Ind.Cas.353
1. On the 19th of February 1918, the plaintiff, Chetarpal Sharma a tradesman in Muttra, brought a suit against Lala Jagannath Das, also a tradesman, and also in Muttra. The plaintiff set out that for more than twenty years he had been selling medicine under the name of Sukh Sancharak Co., and that he bad put upon the market a medicine by the name of 'Sudha Sindhu,' that, the medicine had borne that name for more than twenty years, and that for more than eight years the medicine had been sold in an uniform get up, that is to say, the bottle bad always been the same size, there had been the same inner label on the phial, there' had been the same external label, being the outer wrapper on the packet. Enclosed in the packet were directions and 'puff' advertisements and description of diseases. He also said that in the year 1908 he had registered the labels as his trade-mark, He further said in his plaint that he had what' he described as 'Agents' in the villages in India, Burma, Ceylon and...
Chhidda Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All340; 67Ind.Cas.724
1. The appellant in this case is a chamar named Chhidda whose age is given as thirty years He has been convicted in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Bulandshahr on a charge of having murdered Ram Prasad on the night of the 7th-8th December 1921.2. Several other accused were put on their trial in the Sessions Court along with the appellant Chhidda. These, however, were acquitted.3. The deceased man, Ram Prasad, lived in the same village as the accused, namely the village of Dhakar, which appears to be a place of considerably size situated close to the town of Khurja.4. Ram Prasad was a Brahman and a number of witnesses in the case describe him as having been a man likely to give trouble in the village. They speak of him as having been sarkash (aggressive).5. Briefly put, the story for the prosecution is that late in the evening of the 7th of December 1921 Ram Parsad left the village with the accused Chhidda. It is stated by Ram Prasad's mother that Chhidda took Ram Prasad away on the ...
Uma Dutt Misir Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All503; 68Ind.Cas.847
Lindsay, J.1. The argument put forward in support of this application has the merit of ingenuity bat I do not think it ought to be allowed to prevail.2. The proceedings which are attacked were proceedings tinder Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant, Uma Dat Misser, was, by an order passed on the 14th of March 1921, bound over to keep the peace for a period of one year. In or about the month of July, certain facts transpired which lad to its being believed that Uma Dat had been guilty of a breath of the conditions of the bond, and as a result of this information, proceedings were initiated against him under Section 514. There can be no doubt that these proceedings were taken within the period provided by the bond. For one reason or another it became necessary to transfer the proceedings under Section 514 from the Court in which they were taken. It was held by this Court that hose proceedings could only properly be taken in the Court of the District Magistrate of ...
Bhikhari Das Vs. Abdullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All403; (1922)ILR44All607; 68Ind.Cas.241
Ryves and Stuart, JJ.1. The plaintiff appellant obtained a decree in 1913 for possession of certain property against certain persons and in execution of that decree he got possession of the major portion of the property in suit; but he was resisted by one Abdullah, who was not a party to the decree, on the ground that the premises in the possession of Abdullah were his own property and were not covered by the decree. The plaintiff applied to the executing court for possession against Abdullah but that court by an order dated the 31st of July, 1915, passed under Order XXI, Rule 99, upheld Abdullah's contention. This suit was brought in 1919 for possession of the property in Abdullah's possession. It has been dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 11A of the first schedule to the Limitation Act. In appeal before us it has been argued that that article, does not apply to a suit brought by a decree-holder. This point seems to us to be covered by Sardhari Lal...
Kunj Bihari Lal Vs. Munnu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All605
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The court of the District Judge of Aligarh sitting in insolvency had before it an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of that place in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction, by which certain questions arising under Section 4 of the Insolvency Act, No. V of 1920, had been decided in favour of the Receiver in bankruptcy for the benefit of the general body of creditors. The District Judge did not hear or dispose of the appeal on the merits. He recorded a finding, if it can be called a finding, that the questions raised by the pleadings of the parties in this matter were of such a nature that they ought to be decided by a regular suit and not in the course of insolvency proceedings. On this ground alone he allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Subordinate Judge and gave certain directions to the Receiver. A little more than two weeks later the Receiver petitioned the District Judge, pointing out, in the first place, that it was impossible ...
Munnu Lal Vs. Kunj Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All206; 67Ind.Cas.317
1. The Court of the District Judge of Aligarh sitting in insolvency had before it an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of that place in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction, by which certain questions arising under Section 4 of the Insolvency Act, No. V of 1920, had been decided in favour of the Receiver in bankruptcy for the benefit of the general body of creditors. The District Judge did not hear or dispose of the appeal on the merits. He recorded a finding, if it can be called a finding, that the questions raised by the pleadings of the parties in this matter were of such a nature that they ought to be decided by a regular suit and not in the course of insolvency proceedings. On this ground alone he allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Subordinate Judge and gave certain directions to the Receiver. A little more than two weeks later the Receiver petitioned the District Judge pointing out, in the first plate, that it was impossible for him to comply preci...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›