Allahabad Court November 1925 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.
Babu Radha Kishun and ors. Vs. Kashi Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.510
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for closing of certain windows and other reliefs and has been directed against an order of remand.2. It appears that when the case came before the Court for trial, the parties agreed that it should be decided according to the evidence of one Babu Anand Prasad, Babu Anand Prasad was accordingly examined as a referee with the consent of the parlies and he made certain statements. The learned Munsif was of opinion that the evidence given by Babu. Anand Prasad covered the whole controversy between the parties and would justify a disposal of all the issues raised.. He accordingly partially decreed the suit and partially dismissed it. The parties appealed and both the appeals were disposed of by a single judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. The learned Judge was of opinion that the statement of Babu Anand Prasad was not sufficient for the disposal of the case and he remanded the suit to the Court of first instance for disposal. He directed...
Ratan Mani Vs. Hans Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.450
Daniels, J.1. This is in application for revision of an order discharging the accused in a charge triable by the Sessions Court. An application in revision was made to the District Magistrate who rejected it. The history of the case is this. The Magistrate who heard it after hearing witnesses under Section 202 originally came to the conclusion that the complaint was groundless and dismissed it under a, 203, Cr. P.C. On application being made to him the District Magistrate directed a further inquiry. The Deputy Magistrate then made a full inquiry and after examining witnesses at length and taking the statements of the accused again came to the conclusion that the charge was false. He accordingly discharged the accused. It is said that in doing so he was usurping the functions of the Sessions Judge, but even in the authority relied on by the applicant, namely, In re Bai Parvati 8 Ind. Cas. 631 : 35 B. 163 : 12 Bom. L.R. 923 : 11 Cr. L.J. 692 it is laid down that when a Committing Magistr...
Muhammad Ibrahim Vs. Ram Chandra and Jagat Ram, Vakil
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.514
1. This is an appeal against the Receiver from an order refusing to annul the appellant's adjudication. Muhammad Ibrahim was adjudged insolvent on the 24th of April 1919 and his property vested in the Official Receiver. On the 13th of February 1922 the Receiver entered into a contract for sale of a certain house with Ram Chandra for a sum of Rs. 3,000 and received Rs. 500 as earnest money. When he proceeded to sell this property, an objection was filed by the insolvent's wife claiming this house as her own property. Protracted proceedings followed and ultimately on the 29th of January 1924 the High Court decided against the wife, Rashida Khatun. A subsequent application for review also proved infruc-tuous. On the 3rd of July 1924 the insolvent filed an application purporting to be under Section 38 of the Insolvency Act setting forth a composition scheme. In this he stated that he was able to procure money from his relations and would pay up all the debts that were entered in the schedu...
Mumtaz Ali Vs. Allah Banda
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.600
1. This purports to be a first appeal from order of remand. In the course of a pending suit, while a Commissioner was appointed by the Court to draw up a sketch plan, the parties are alleged to have agreed to refer their dispute to two arbitrators who went to the spot and made two marks on the land to indicate the line which should be drawn beyond which the defendant's construction should not extend. On the 22nd of April 1924 an application purporting to be one under Schedule II, Rule 20 of the C.P.C., was filed by the plaintiff with a request that the alleged award made by the arbitrators should be filed in Court. Objections were filed on the 26th of April denying any valid reference to the arbitrators or the making of any valid award. The Court of first instance took evidence and decided that a valid reference and a valid award had been made. But instead of passing first an order directing the award to be filed and then passing a decree in terms of it it passed a composite order decr...
Emperor Vs. Mt. Kesar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All226
ORDERDaniels, J.1. In the case King-Emperor v. Mt. Kesar, under Section 309, of the Penal Code, the Magistrate convicting the accused has dealt with the case under the provisions of Section 562, Criminal P.C., and taken security from her for her appearance if called on within one year.2. It is proved that the accused jumped into a well merely in consequence of a quarrel with a woman neighbour in which abuse only was exchanged. The Magistrate considers that her object was to cast ignominy on the person she had quarrelled with.3. I consider that no adequate punishment has been awarded and that the law has not been vindicated.4. There is an increasing tendency among Magistrates to avoid punishing attempts of suicide. The law is clear; but it is rapidly becoming a dead letter. If Section 309 is to be retained it must be enforced, and I feel that if it is to be enforced a pronouncement is required from higher authority than mine.5. I therefore refer this case to the Honourable High Court fo...
JalaluddIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All271
1. Jalaluddin, Excise Inspector of the Bijnor District, applied to the High Court in revision to have his conviction under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, for taking an illegal gratification from a liquor contractor, set aside. The learned Judge to whom the application was presented referred the matter to a Bench of two Judges and also issued a notice to Jalaluddin to show cause why the sentence passed on him should not be enhanced. The applicant was sentenced by a Magistrate of the Moradabad District, to whose Court the case was transferred from Bijnor, to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 500 with three months' further simple imprisonment in default.2. The point raised in revision was that the prosecution of the applicant without the sanction of the Local Government was bad and so the trial should be set aside. The applicant is an Excise Inspector who was appointed to his post by the Local Government in 1909. Under Section 197(1) of the Criminal P.C. the sanction of...
Jalal UddIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.857
1. Jalaluddin Excise Inspector of the Bijnor District applied to the High Court in revision to have his conviction under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, for taking an illegal gratification from a liquor contractor set aside. The learned Judge to whom the application was presented referred the matter to a Bench of two Judges and also issued a notice to Jalaluddin to show cause why the sentence passed on him should not be enhanced. The applicant was sentenced by a Magistrate of the Moradabad District, to whose Court the case was transferred from Bijnor, to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 500 with three month's further simple imprisonment in default.2. The point raised in revision was that the prosecution of the applicant without the sanction of the Local Government was bad and so the trial should be set aside. The applicant is an Excise Inspector who was appointed to his post by the Local Government in 1901. Under Section 197(1) of the Cr.P.C. the sanction of the Loca...
Emperor Vs. Musammat Kesar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.591
Daniels, J.1. For the reasons given by the District Magistrate I accept this Reference and substitute a sentence of fourteen days, simple imprisonment for the order under Section 562 of the Cr.P.C. passed by the Court below. Dr. Vaish for the applicant has referred me to a ruling of the year 1914, Emperor v. Ghasite 26 Ind. Cas. 635 : 37 A. 31 : 12 A.L.J. 1244 : 16 Cr.L.J. 43, in which it was held that the only procedure open to the High. Court in such a case was to order a re-trial. The law has since been amended, and Section 562, Sub-section (3), empowers the High Court in (he exercise of its powers of revision to set aside an order under Section 562 and substitute a-sentence of imprisonment....
Lallan Misir and ors. Vs. Ram Rachchha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All242
Daniels, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur on the ground that an order passed by the Magistrate, Ch. Mohibullah, directing certain crops to be made over to the opposite party Ram Rachchha Koeri was passed without jurisdiction and should be set aside. There was originally a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of these crops and the plots on which they grew between Lallan Misir on the one side and Kanta Kunwar and Jarnna Kunwar on the other. That proceeding was commenced before Ch. Mohibullah, but he was transferred while it was pending and the final order was passed by another Magistrate. This order was to the effect that the Magistrate was unable to determine who was in possession of the plots, and he, therefore, attached the crops under Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The crop had in the meanwhile been cut and stored by the police to prevent its perishing. Ram Ramchchha had applied to be made a...
Muhammad Zakaria Vs. Kishun NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All268
Sulaiman, J.1. This purports to be an execution first appeal from an order dated the 6th July 1925 passed by the execution Court. It appears that a mortgage-decree for sale was in execution and a proclamation of sale was prepared and issued in the first instance under Order 21, Rule 66. The date for the sale was fixed as the 9th of July 1925. Three days before this date the respondent Muhammad Hafiz who was till then no party to the execution proceedings tiled an application in the execution Court praying that a certain mortgage-deed dated the 14th of September 1910 in his favour be notified. In his application he set forth the fact that on a previous occasion he had instituted a suit for the recovery of the principle amount due on his deed but that suit was ultimately dismissed. He then recited a passage from the judgment of Mr. Justice Walsh who was one of the learned Judges who disposed of the appeal in the High Court, to the effect that 'it by no means follows from the decision (di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »