Allahabad Court April 1923 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.
Kishan Lal, Tirkha Mal Vs. East Indian Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All530
Daniels, J.1. This revision raises a question of the liability of a railway company in respect of goods consigned under risk-note B. In this form of risk-note the consignor, in view of reduced rate of freight, agrees to hold the railway ' harmless and free from all responsibility for any loss, destruction or deterioration of or damage to the said consignment, from any cause whatever, except for the loss of a complete consignment or of one or more complete packages...due either to the wilful neglect of the railway administration or to theft by or to the wilful neglect of its servants,' with a further proviso that 'wilful neglect shall not be held to include fire, robbery from a running train or any other unforeseen event or accident.'2. One hundred and twenty-six bags of sugar were consigned to the plaintiff under a risk-note in this form. On taking delivery the number was found to be short by three bags. The plaint alleges that in consequence of this short delivery the plaintiffs have ...
Asghar Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.1040
Ryves, J.1. This is a revision from the 0 order of a Special Magistrate of Moradabad ordering the applicant to return Rs. 300 in three instalments, under Section 2 of Act XIII of 1859 as amended by Act XII of 1920. which is the Workman's. Breach of Contract Act.2. Admittedly, the applicant and the complainant in the case had executed an agreement by which the accused had undertaken to work day after day for twelve months. This agreement was dated the 22nd June 1921. The complaint was brought in November 1922 and it was brought on the ground that the total number of days that the accused worked did not amount to 365. This does not in any way seem to me to be the same as the terms of the agreement, i.e., to work every day without fail for the term of one year. The max mum, period fixed by that agreement was one calendar year and the failure to work any day during that period was a breach of the agreement on which the complainant could take action. He could therefore, take action at any t...
Sita Ram and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.690
Daniels, J.1. This is an application for revision of an. order passed under Section 476 directing the prosecution of the accused under Section 205 of the Indian Penal Code. The application has teen pressed on the facts only, but there is no doubt on the Magistrate's order that a prima facie case is made out against the applicants. It appears that the complainant had filed a list of witnesses and the case had teen adjourned for their evidence. On the adjourned date the two applicants, Sita Ram and' Ram Lal, appeared as witnesses, and in their evidence gave their names as Radha Kishen and Pershadi Lal, respectively, these being the two witnesses for whose evidence the case had teen adjourned. The Trying Magistrate took action under Section 476 of the Indian Penal Code. The case came before the District Magistrate who passed, an order purporting to uphold the Trying Magistrate's order but to alter the charge from one under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code to one under Section 205 of t...
East Indian Railway Company Vs. Firm KishIn Lal Tirkhamal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All7; 73Ind.Cas.986
Daniels, J.1. This revision raises a question of the liability of a Railway Company in respect of goods consigned tinder Risk Note B. In this Form of Risk Note the consignor, in view of reduced rate of freight, agrees to hold the Railway 'harmless and free from all responsibility for any loss, destruction or deterioration or damage to the said consignment from any cause whatever except for the loss of a complete consignment or of one or more complete packages...due either to the wilful neglect of the Railway Administration or to theft by, or to the wilful neglect of its servants...(with a further proviso) that wilful neglect shall not be held to include fire, robbery from a running train or any other unforeseen event or accident.'2. One hundred and twenty-six bags of sugar were consigned to the plaintiff under a Risk Note in this form. On taking delivery the number was found to be short by three bags. The plaint alleges that, in consequence of this short delivery, the plaintiffs have s...
Jokhu Rai and ors. Vs. Bhabhuti Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All559; 77Ind.Cas.760
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for ejectment of non-occupancy tenants under sections 58 and 63 of the Tenancy Act. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court but has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. It is common ground that the plots in suit were held by one Musammat Sugandhia an occupancy-tenant and that the entire rent of the plot was realised by the plaintiffs. On Sugandhia's death the defendants took possession of the plot claiming to have succeeded to Musammat Sugandhia's occupancy tenancy. There was a dispute in the Revenue Courts regarding the entry to be made in the papers with the result that the defendants were recorded as non-occupancy tenants. On the plaintiffs subsequently suing to eject them they changed their ground and alleged that they were in possession as co-sharers. That they have a proprietary share in the village is not in dispute.2. The learned District Judge has dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that in his opinion the...
Gudri Khatik Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All595; 77Ind.Cas.886
Daniels, J.1. The applicants in revision, Gudri, Markhande and Sahdeo Pandey; have been bound over under section Ho, Criminal Procedure Code, by a Magistrate of the First Class together with a fourth man Raja Bhar and their appeals have been dismissed by the District Magistrate. Twenty-nine witnesses in all were called for the prosecution including 1he headmen' of six different villages in the neighbourhood. The general effect of the evidence of these witnesses is that the accused are well known notorious thieves and belong to one gang. The only legal ground verged is that the Magistrate wrongly admitted statements as to the accused having been suspected in particular cases. This point is immaterial because even if this evidence is excluded the evidence of repute is sufficient to support the order. It is a curious circumstance that in a similar application in revision which proceeded this, one of the complaints of Counsel was that no evidence had been given'of the accused having been s...
Aziz Ahmad Vs. Buddhu Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All183; (1923)ILR45All553; 73Ind.Cas.773
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision asking this Court to make, under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an order for the restoration of property, which the trial court has refused to make. The discretion to pass or not to pass such an order is very clearly vested in the trial court by the section, which says that the court may pass such an order if it thinks fit. I know of no case in which a court of appeal or revision has compelled a court to pass such an order in a case in which, in the exercise of its discretion, it has declined to do so. Indeed there is the authority of two High Courts, those of Calcutta and the Punjab, for the view that a court of appeal or revision has no power to do so. This was held by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Bhagabat Shaha v. Sadique Ostagar (1912) I.L.R. 39 Calc. 1050 and by the Punjab High Court in Muhammad Din v. The Crown (1919) Punjab Records Criminal Judgment p. 36. Even if this Court in revision has power to pass ...
Kirpa Kishan Kishori Vs. Babu Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All225; (1923)ILR45All606; 76Ind.Cas.765
Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. We think the Judge has taken an altogether erroneous view in the matter. It is not perhaps surprising, as it is a very technical point, and it is extremely difficult to see one's way clearly through the proper procedure, but the matter is made absolutely clear by the luminous judgment of the late Shr Sundar, Lal in Bhagwan Dayal v. Param Siikli Das (1916) I.L.R. 39 All. 8 and if the Judge had had this decision brought to his notice and explained, he no doubt would have taken the view that we now take. We agree with the decision in that case. The ratio decidendi is that the previous suit having Failed for want of a lawful guardian, the proceedings in it, including the decision, are a nullity from the point when the improper appointment of the guardian was made. It is not, therefore, a commencement of a fresh suit. It is not an application for rehearing, because in the eyes of the law there has been none, ft is not an application to restore. It is an application to...
Raja Singh and anr. Vs. Durga Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.607
Daniels, J.1. These appeals by the defendants arise out of two suits to set aside two sale-deeds executed by two adult members of the joint family to which the plaintiffs belong and by their mother. The sole issue in the case which is now material was whether these deeds where executed for purposes binding on the joint family estate. The consideration of the sale-deeds is made up of various items but the only item which is in dispute in this appeal consists of Rs. 415 which was applied to pay off a mortgage executed by the father of the plaintiffs. Part of the consideration was set off against each sale-deed. Following the law as laid down in Sahu Ram Chandra v. Bhup Singh 39 Ind. Cas.280 : 21 C.W.N. 698 : 1 P.L.W. 557 : 5 A.L.J. 437 : 19 Bom. :L.R. 498 : 26 C.L.J. 1 : 33 M.L.J. 14 : (1917) M.W.N. 439 : 22 M.L.T. 22 : 6 L.W. 213 : 39 A. 437 : 44 I.A. 126 (P.C.) the Courts below have gone on to consider how far this mortgage was executed for legal necessity. Some items have been allowed...
Ghulam HussaIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All78; 73Ind.Cas.769
Daniels, J.1. The appellants, Ghulam Hussain, Eida Hussain, Raza Hussain and Maqbul Hussain, are the brothers of one Musammat Chanda, prostitute, they were charged under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code with culpable homicide in causing the death of one Sukha. The learned Sessions Judge, on the supposed authority of Emperor v. Bhola Singh 29 A. 282 : A.W.N. (1907) 51 : 4 A.L.J. 207: 5 Cr. L.J. 130, has altered the charge to one under Section 325 and with the concurrence of the assessors as regards three of the accused has convicted them under that section. As regards Raza Hussain the assessors appear to have been impressed by an alibi which he put forward but I agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence in support of this alibi is of no value.2. It is common ground that there was considerable previous ill-feeling between Musammat Ghanda and her brothers on the one side and Sukha and the principal witness Inayatullah on the other. Three days before the present occurrenc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »