Allahabad Court March 1925 Judgments
Raghunath Prasad Singh Vs. Lachhmi NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All394
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a decree holder's appeal arising out of an execution of a decree the application has been dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation, the only objection that was considered by the Court below and which has been argued before us is as to whether the step taken by the decree-holder on the 26th of April, 1919, amounted to a step-in-aid of the execution of the decree-within the meaning of Article 182, Sub-clause (5) of the Limitation Act the learned Subordinate Judge has coma to the-conclusion that it did not amount to such a step.2. After much trouble we have been able to ascertain what exactly happened. The suit was one for partition of considerable properties and a final decree for partition-was passed as early as 1912. About that 26th of April, 1919, there were several objections raised by various judgment-debtors to the previous application for execution. On the 26fch of April, 1919, the decree-holder put in an application praying that the record o...
Tag this Judgment!Amir Haidar and anr. Vs. Ali Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All424
Lindsay, J.1. This is a somewhat peculiar case. The suit was a suit for pre-emption and was brought by two persons, Sh. Amir Haidar and Ahmad Baza. Sh. Amir Haidar was the uncle of Ahmad Raza, who in the plaint, was described as being a minor 7 years old.2. The person who sold the property was a lady named Mt. Nawis-un-nissa, who was the step sister of Sh. Amir Haidar, the first plaintiff.3. The purchasers were the defendants Nos. 1 and 2.4. The Court of first instance decreed preemption on payment of a sum of Rs. 650.5. The lower Court has dismissed the suit entirely.6. The reason why the lower Court has dismissed the suit is this. In the trial Court it was asserted by the purchasers that the negotiations for sale had taken place through the first plaintiff, Sh. Amir Haidar, who had consented to the sale both on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor nephew, Ahmad Raza.7. The Subordinate Judge, who tried the suit, did not believe this evidence and held that consent was not proved a...
Tag this Judgment!Gajendra Singh Vs. Durga Kumari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All503
Walsh, J.1. This matter arises in the following way : An appeal was filed in this Court on the 7th of April, 1922, on behalf of Rai Bahadur Ghaudhri Gajendra Singh against Srimati Durga Kumari, the relief sought by which was to set aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, dated the 23rd of January, 1922, and the value of such appeal was stated at Rs. 73,841/10. On the 23rd of January, 1924, that is to say, nearly two years afterwards, an application was filed on behalf of the respondent to the above-mentioned appeal, which, it should be mentioned, was an Execution First Appeal, asking that the said appeal should be dismissed. The application did not in terms ask this Court to record an adjustment, or to decide any question under Order 23, Rule 3. The affidavit in support of it set out the fact that an agreement and what was called an award made under the said agreement, had been come to between the parties and alleged that the appellant in the said appeal had no right to c...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Union Bank
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All519
Walsh, J.1. This is a claim by the Liquidator of the Allahabad Union Bank Ltd., liquidation, against several Directors, and also against a Director who, in the later years of the Bank's existence, became Auditor, for various alleged acts of mis-application of the Company's funds, and of misfeasance under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Aot of 1913. The particulars originally filed show a claim of Rs. 1,41,000 odd representing the cumulative liability of all the Directors in respect of all the charges. That total is divided into three classes, namely a sum for payment of dividends year after year when the Company was making no profit but a loss, and, therefore, out of capital, a further large sum of Rs. 56,000 described as value of grain but being in fact an alleged loss which the Company suffered by reason of the failure of certain of the Directors to obtain adequate security by way of grain from a Company called Annapurna Company, Ltd. and a further item stated at Rs. 42,000 descr...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Balram Das-fakir Chand Vs. G.i.P. Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All562
Boys, J.1. In this case a firm called Balram Dag Fakir Chand carrying on business at; Basra in the District of Ballia sued the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company for compensation to the amount of Rs. 1,271-8-0 on account of the price of two bales of yarn with interest thereon on the allegation that they delivered these goods to the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company at Victoria Terminus at; Bombay to be transported to and delivered at Basra in the district of Ballia and that the Railway Company failed to deliver the goods in accordance with their contract.2. It is admitted that the goods were sent under the owner's Risk-Note B, That Risk-Note is no longer in current use but with that act we are not concerned; nor with the question of what may be the effect of our interpretation of the old rules on any new Risk-Notes that may now be in force.3. It is clear that prima facie the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages against the Railway Company and the Railway Company could onl...
Tag this Judgment!Naunihal Singh and ors. Vs. Alice Georgina Skinner and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All707; 92Ind.Cas.63
Lindsay, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of a suit for redemption brought by Alice Georgina Skinner in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. This lady died after the decision in the Court below and is now represented by her executor, Mr. J.R.R. Skinner.2. The suit was filed on the 11th May, 1920 and the mortgage of which, redemption was sought was executed by the plaintiff's father, Thomas Skinner, on the 1st September, 1863, to secure a loan of Bs. 50,000 which he took from a firm of money-lenders, Lakshmi Chand and Gobind Das who were popularly known as the Seths of Muttra. Since the date of the mortgage, the mortgaged property has passed into the hands of many persons the result being that the plaintiff found it necessary to implead over 80 defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge has passed a preliminary decree for redemption, dated the 31st January, 1923, by which he directs the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 1,09,641-118.3. The suit was not decreed in full, for the Subordinate Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Balram Dass-fakir Chand Vs. the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Co ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.559
1. In this case a firm called Balram Das-Fakir Chand carrying on business at Rasra in the District of Ballia sued the G.I.P. Railway Company for compensation to the amount of Rs. 1,271-8 on account of the price of two bales of yarn with interest thereon on the allegation that they delivered these goods to the G.I.P. Railway Company at Victoria Terminus at Bombay to be transported to and delivered at Rasra in the District of Ballia and that the Railway Company failed to deliver the goods in accordance with their contract.2. It is admitted that the goods were sent under the owner's risk Note B. That risk note is no longer in current use but with that fact we are not concerned; nor with the question of what may be the effect of our interpretation of the old rules on any new risk notes that may now be in force.3. It is clear that prima facie the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages against the Railway Company and the Railway Company could only escape by proving that they are freed fro...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Amir Haider and anr. Vs. Ali Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.234
1. This is a somewhat peculiar case. The suit was a suit for preemption and was brought by two persons, Sheikh Amir Haider and Ahmad Raza. Sheikh Amir Haider was the uncle of Ahmad Raza, who, in the plaint was described as being a minor 7 years old.2. The person who sold the property was a lady named Musammat Nawis-un-nissa, who was the step-sister of Sheikh Amir Haidar, the first plaintiff.3. The purchasers ware the defendants Nos. 1 and 2.4. The Court of first instance decreed preemption on payment of a sum of Rs. 650. The lower Court has dismissed the suit entirely.5. The reason why the lower Court has dismissed the suit is this. In the Trial Court it was asserted by the purchasers that the negotiations for sale had taken place through the first plaintiff, Sheikh Amir Haidar, who had consented to the sale both on his own benalf and on behalf of his minor nephew, Ahmad Raza.6. The Subordinate Judge who tried the suit did not believe this evidence and held that consent was not proved ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Lachhman Prasad Babu Ram of Cawnpore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All385
Walsh, J.1. The answers to the three points submitted to us are as follows:On the facts stated, a reasonable opportunity was given to the assessee to produce the accounts of the Calcutta Branch, first in Calcutta, secondly in Cawnpore, where the Income-Tax Officer of Calcutta was led to believe that the books were available.2. Secondly, on the evidence stated, the assessee was not prevented by sufficient cause from producing the books in Cawnpore.3. Thirdly, in our opinion, the jurisdiction of the Income-Tax Officer of the area in which the principal place of business is situated is not ousted the jurisdiction is concurrent. Under Section 64, Sub-section 1, the Income-Tax Officer of the principal place of business has the duty of assessing the whole of the income derived from the principal place of business as wall as the various branches. By Sub-section 4, every Income-Tax Officer has also jurisdiction to exercise the powers of an Income-Tax Officer with regard to the profits arising ...
Tag this Judgment!Abhainandan Prasad Vs. Bhagwan Dutt Pathak and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All765
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of profits. The position has arisen in a curious way. On the 15th of January,, 1920 one Ram Samujh executed a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff Rai Bahadur Abhainandan Prasad under which he sold a certain share in village together with the arrears of profits in respect of sir and khudkasht lands due from the co-sharers on account of the previous years 1324,1325 and 1326 Fasli, for a total sum of Rs. 1,000. A suit for pre-emption was brought by the present defendants with regard to the share sold and was ultimately decreed. The judgment in the pre-emption suit is not on this file, but it is admitted that the decree for pre-emption was with regard to the share and it was on payment of the full consideration of Rs. 1,000.2. The plaintiff instituted the present suit in the revenue Court claiming arrears of profits against the co-sharers. The Court of first instance granted the plaintiff a decree, but on appeal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »