Allahabad Court November 1926 Judgments
Chhajju and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All217
Kendall, J.1. This is an application in revision against the appellate order of the Sessions Judge of Moradabad, confirming the order passed against the applicants by the Magistrate under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The main argument which has been addressed to me in support of the application, relates to the omission of the trying Magistrate to inform the applicants that they could re-summon the witnesses for the prosecution for cross-examination at the next hearing. The facts are that the witnesses for the prosecution were examined on May the 10th and cross-examined the same day, and the accused (applicants) also made their statements on the same day. On that day the accused were not represented by counsel. There was a subsequent hearing on May the 19th on which day the accused were represented by counsel. All that happened then was that the witnesses for the defence were examined. It is maintained that under Section 256, Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate was re...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Das Vs. Chimman Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All266
Walsh, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal must be allowed so far as the order adjudicating the appellant an insolvent is concerned. The learned Judge has got himself into somewhat of a tangle in his endeavour to apply the provisions of Section 6. Only two alleged acts of insolvency are concerned. First, the third in Sub-section (d), where the insolvent with any intent to defeat or delay his creditors secludes himself so as to deprive his creditors of the means of communicating, with him. That was the only ground alleged in the original petition. That ground was found by the Judge in favour of the insolvent, and therefore no order could be* made on that. At the hearing the learned Judge framed an issue, which itself suggested the other ground mentioned in Sub-section (g), namely,if the insolvent gives notice to any of the creditors that he has suspended payment of his debts.2. It is difficult to recognize in the form of the issue any relation between it and the provisions of the Act which we have j...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal and anr. Vs. Janki Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All487
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for partition of a ginning factory and press. The plaintiffs alleged that they were shareholders in this ginning factory and press to the extent of 5/72. They admitted that this partnership had been declared to be invalid inasmuch as it consisted of more than 20 members. Nevertheless they asked for the relief mentioned above.2. The defendants, who were other members of this illegal association, pleaded inter alia that the suit was not maintainable because the partnership was illegal. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit holding that this was a suit by one partner against the remaining partners in respect of illegal partnership transactions, and the plaintiffs could not seek any redress from a Court of justice.3. The plaintiffs have come up in appeal, and on their behalf it is contended that there is no bar to the Court granting them a relief for the actual partition of the property, treating it as belongi...
Tag this Judgment!Chaturbhuj - Ram Lal Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All215
1. This is an order of reference in a case brought against two Railway Companies, in which it was alleged that some goods had been lost in transit and the defendant Railway Companies complain that proper notice was not given to them within the provisions of the Railways Act. The objection took two forms, one as to the failure of the claimants to prefer a claim within six months from the date of the delivery of the consignment, and the other that the notice, in the case of the East Indian Railway, was wrongly addressed. The Munsif has disposed of the first objection as regards time without reference to us on the question of law. The second question which he has referred to us is whether the notice was duly served upon the Manager within the meaning of Section 140. In our view, as a general rule, and in this particular case, it cannot be said to be a question of law at all, but is a question of fact, depending upon the evidence in each case, and we propose to deal with it in this case as...
Tag this Judgment!Kishen Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All237; 85Ind.Cas.245
Kendall, J.1. This is a trivial matter in itself, but it deals with a decision which may be of importance. The applicant has been convicted by a Magistrate of an offence under Section 16 of the Press and Registration of Books Act of 1867, and fined Rs. 5 in the following circumstances:2. The applicant is a proprietor of a Press and a book-seller, and he had been printing copies of the 'Bhagwat Gita' in his press. Under Clause (a), Section 9 of the Act, he had to deliver copies of the book within one calendar month after the day on which the book had first been delivered out of the press at a place notified by the Government which in this case was the District Magistrate's office. Copies of the book were ready printed on the 8th, 11th and 15th December 1925, but they remained in the press for binding, etc., and were not sent out of the, press until January. They were received at the District Magistrate's office on the 2nd February. The trying Magistrate has held that the book must be de...
Tag this Judgment!Budhu Khan Vs. A. Boner
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All335
Dalal, J.1. This appeal relates to the execution of a decree of this Court which was passed in favour of the decree-holder who had not paid the proper Court-fee in the Subordinate Courts. This Court, therefore, ordered that the decree will not issue unless the amount of Court-fee payable on the plaint was deposited by the plaintiff and that when it was deposited, it will be included in the costs of the Court below. The judgment was delivered on the 30th January 1923, and without payment of Court-fee the plaintiff applied for the execution of the decree on 30th January 1926. This application was within time from the date of the judgment of this Court. Subsequently, on 2nd February 1926, the plaintiff paid the deficiency in Court-fee here. She desires to recover both the amount paid by her on 2nd February 1926, and the costs she had incurred and already paid prior to 30th January 1926. I cannot agree with the view of the lower Court that the decree became capable of execution on 2nd Febr...
Tag this Judgment!Mangat Vs. Bharto and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All523
Dalal, J.1. For the purposes of this second appeal, it must be held that the plaintiff, Mt. Bharto is the daughter of Mt. Rukmin by Hari Ram This was disputed by the defendant, but both the subordinate Courts held in favour of the plaintiff. The next point is whether the suit for declaration by plaintiff that the deed of gift executed by Mt. Rukmin in favour of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was not binding on her was time barred or not. It was argued that Mt. Rukhmin lost her right to hold her husband's estate for her life on her remarriage, and as she continued in possession she became owner by adverse possession after a lapse of twelve years. Reference was made to Section 2 of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act (Act No. 15 of 1856), which enacted that a Hindu widow on remarriage forfeited all her rights and interest in her deceased husband's property. This Court, however, has held repeatedly that this forfeiture does not apply to a Hindu widow who is permitted to remarry prior to 1856. All th...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhraj Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All834; 101Ind.Cas.603
Kendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an appellate order of the District Magistrate of Benares. No previous application for revision has been made to the Sessions Judge, and the only question that I have to consider is whether the present application is barred by the omission of the applicant to apply in the first place to the Sessions Judge.2. A Bench of this Court in 1921 has decided that a previous application for revision to the lower Court should be considered an essential step in the procedure and that failure on the part of the applicant to submit his application to the lower Court will operate as a bar to the application being entertained by the High Court: Sharif Ahmad v. Qabul Singh A.I.R. 1921 All. 30. It has been argued in this case that there has been an appeal to the District Magistrate and this should be deemed to have the effect of an application in revision. The question of procedure was discussed by Mr. Justice Piggott in Mansoor Husain v. Emperor [...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Rai Vs. Firm Kani Ram Munna Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All293
Mukerji, J.1. This petition in revision is on behalf of the defendant and raises a question of law on which, so far as this country is concerned, there does not appear to be any authority.2. It appears that the defendant-applicant was adjudicated an insolvent by the Calcutta High Court on 22nd of June 1921. He presented a scheme of composition which was ultimately accepted by the High Court and the adjudication was annulled on the 27th September 1923. The respondents had a money claim as against the petitioner on the allegation that the latter obtained goods from them from time to time between the 15th July 1916 and the 19th June 1921, that he paid a portion of the price, and a small balance was still due with interest. On the completion of the insolvency proceedings, by a suit instituted on the 3rd July 1924, the respondents claimed a sum of Rs. 109 odd alleged to be due to them, in the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore. The defendant denied the claim and pleaded, inter alia, that the...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All223
Kendall, J.1. This is an application for revision of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Muttra upholding the conviction of Raman Lal under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts of the case are given at length in the learned Judge's judgment. The main point taken on behalf of the applicant is that the trial is vitiated by joinder of charges in respect of eight separate necklaces. The applicant had been accused of committing various offences in connexion with his management of a temple, and one of the complaints against him was that he had stolen eight necklaces, valued at about Rs. 15,000 which had been in the possession of the temple. The Magistrate framed a charge against him to the following effect:That you on or about the day following Annakut day of Sambat 1977, corresponding to 12th November 1920, at Gokal, being a servant of Mt. Maha Lakshmi Bahuji, committed theft in respect of eight necklaces Valued at Rs. 15,000 which necklaces were in the possession of yo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »