Allahabad Court July 1928 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.
Frank Coowbs Vs. Mufassil Bank, Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All674
Sen, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal. On 12th of October 1923, the appellant had borrowed Rs. 1,000 from the Mufassil Bank Ltd., Gorakhpur, on a promissory note. On 15th December 1925, the Bank instituted a suit for recovery of the principal amount together with interest. As a result of certain negotiations an instalment decree was passed against the appellant on 25th January 1926. It was agreed that Rs. 250 should be paid by the debtor to the creditor on 25th January 1926 and that the balance, namely, Rs. 1,005 was payable in two equal instalments of Rs. 502-8-0 on 30th June 1926, and 31st December 1926.2. On 25th January 1926, before the decree was passed the appellant paid to the respondent Rs. 250. On 18th June 1926, the judgment-debtor paid Rs. 264-10-0 to the decree-holder. On 11th March 1927, the decree-holder applied for execution of his decree for recovery of Rs. 846-2-0 principal and interest by the arrest of the judgment-debtor. This application was subsequently soug...
In Re: Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All70; 114Ind.Cas.897
Mukerji, J.1. This is a case stated by the Commissioner of Income-tax at the instance of the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company, Limited, Cawnpore. The question submitted for our answer runs as follows:2. Was the engine in question sold or discarded in consequence of its having become obsolete within the meaning of Section 10(2)(vii), Income-tax Act, 1922?3. The facts are given in the order of the learned Assistant Commissioner dated 16th January 1928 and are as follows:4. The Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited had a steam driven engine. So far back as in 1923 it was decided that it should be replaced (at such date as might be found convenient) on the ground that it had become obsolete. The machine was, however, not actually replaced although an electricity driven engine was provided. In September 1926 the engine actually broke down, and the question arose whether it should be repaired or not. Within a few days the company decided that it should not be repaired but should be sold. It was...
Mangat Rai and ors. Vs. Babu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All85
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is an execution first appeal arising out of a mortgage decree. The appeal purports to have been preferred from an order dated 19th December 1927. That order merely was one rejecting an application for stay of the sale. It is clear to us that such an order is not appealable. It did not involve any question relating to the execution of the decree which would amount to an adjudication conclusively determining the rights of the parties with regard to any of the matters in controversy. Section 47 has to be read with Section 2, Civil P.C., and reading the two sections together it is obvious that every order passed by an execution Court is not necessarily appealable. It is only appealable when it determines the rights of the parties with regard to any matter in controversy. A refusal to postpone a sale did not determine the rights of the parties within the meaning of that section. We may refer to the case of Husain Bhai v. Beltie Shah Gilani A.I.R. 1924 All. 808 and ...
Sham Dat Rai Vs. Renuka Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.100
Kendall, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit brought by one Sham Dat Rai for a declaration that Decree No. 184 of 1921, relates to a plot of land bearing No. 649 at the Survey of 1273 Fasli, and not to the cultivatory holding of the plaintiff which bears the No. 985/38 of the Survey of 1301 Fasli now numbered 355, 366 and 367, and also for joint possession against the defendants Nos. 1 to 8. The defendants Nos. 9 to 12 were said to be in joint possession with the plaintiff. Other reliefs were asked for, which need not be enumerated here. The parties to the appeal are relatives who have been litigating over this or the adjoining land for about a quarter of a century, and evidently regard litigation as an amusement.2. It is necessary for the sake of clearness to re state the facts as shortly as possible. In 1906 the present respondents sued for recovery of possession of the plot now in suit, calling it No. 985/38 according to the Survey of 1301 Fasli, and identifying that number with No....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›