Allahabad Court August 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.
Ajudhia Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All752; 113Ind.Cas.179
Dalal, J.1. Ajudhia Prasad Dhobi has appealed from his conviction under Section 161 read with Section 116, I.P.C., 111. (a) to Section 116 says:A offers a bribe to B a public servant as a reward for showing A some favour in the exercise of his official function. B refuses to accept the bribe. A is punishable under this section.2. The Dhobi is not the actual A but he introduced the bribe giver to the Assistant Superintendent of Police Mr. Naqvi. Mr. Naqvi heard from a female servant what Ajudhia intended and made preparation to receive Ajudhia and the principal person Narain Das, who desired that the Assistant Superintendent of Police should use favour in the exercise of his official functions. The favour desired by Narain Das was that his brother's name may be removed from Register No. 8 of bad characters of the Jhansi Police-Station. There can be no doubt that Ajudhia and Narain Das appeared before the officer and offered a bribe which was not accepted. Learned counsal here has argued...
Gaya Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All745
Dalal, J.1. It is difficult to understand the arguments of the two subordinate Courts. The applicant has been convicted of an offence under Section 336, I.P.C. The section runs as follows:Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment.2. What was alleged and found by the two subordinate Courts against the applicant was this. He was a pujari of a temple and left the temple at night in charge of a third person. While away from the temple he deliberately threw bricks at the temple hoping that the Hindus would believe that the bricks came from the Mahomedan quarter and that thereby the Hindus would be enraged against the Mahomedans and there would be a riot between the Hindus and Mahomedans. The applicant is held to have done that deliberately and not rashly or negligently. A rash act is primarily an overhasty act and is opposed to a deliberate act. Even if it is partly deliberate, it is done wit...
Chhitaria and ors. Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All16
Dalal, J.1. The Municipal Board permitted one Gangu to construct a drain in Mohalla Kishoripura within the Municipal limits of Bindraban. While the drain was being constructed by a contractor of the Municipality on the application of Gangu, Gangaram and Mt. Koka prevented the contractor from working on the ground that the land which was being dug up for the construction of the drain belonged to them. These two persons and one Chhitaria were prosecuted under Section 295 for obstructing a person employed in contract with the Board in the performance of his duty. They were convicted by a Magistrate and the District Magistrate has made this reference for the setting aside of the conviction on the ground that the contract-was not given according to the Act. It was argued here on behalf of the Municipality that it is not the business of the Court to enquire into the antecedents of the contract. This argument is incorrect. It is definitely stated in Section 295 that the obstruction should be ...
Manni Lal Awasthi Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All682
Dalal, J.1. There have been many hearings in this case and I have spent many anxious hours to discover whether the judgment of the Joint Magistrate, so severely shaken by the learned Judge, arrived in this Court moribund or entirely dead. The reading of the evidence has not left a pleasant impression; so I tried, as best I may, to hear heart-beats in the body produced in this Court, but I am afraid that none could be heard.2. Manni Lal Avasthi who and whose counsel boasted that he had many respectable friends in Cawnpore, has been bound over by the Joint Magistrate of Cawnpore under Section 110. A long table of reasons for the order was given why the applicant was required to show cause. The learned Judge, however, has refined the matter so much that very little remains to support the reasons for the notice. The Judge has abandoned all points and on p. 18 ( reference to paging shall be made to the copy of the judgment on the record) the Judge has pronounced:In short I think that ultima...
Bhan Deb Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All696
Dalal, J.1. The laxity with which penal statutes are made use of by public bodies is a matter of grave concern. No one takes the trouble of reading the law before launching a prosecution. In the present case the applicant has been convicted of an offence under the Municipal Act, Section 307 (b), on the ground that within the limits of a Municipality he erected a new part of a building or made material alterations therein without the Board's permission. Obviously Clause 2, Section 178, Municipalities Act, was lost sight of that the notice referred to in Sub-section 1 to be given by a person, who desires to erect a new part of a building or to make material alterations, shall only be necessary when the building abuts on or is adjacent to a public street or place or property vested in His Majesty or in the Board. In the Magistrate's Court everything was taken for granted. It appears, however, that the reason for prosecution was clearly defined in the Sessions Court, and it was alleged tha...
Chaudhri Nand Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.680
Dalal, J.1. Nand Lal, a tenant, has been convicted of an offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Court by virtue of the provisions of Section 95 of the new Agra Tenancy Act III of 1926. That Act came into operation on the 7th September, 1926. The Appellate Court has gone further and held that Nand Lal re-entered the land with the intention of annoying the zemindar. Both points will, therefore, have to be considered.2. Section 95 does not apply. It is definitely stated in that section that the provisions will apply only if a decree for ejectment has been executed under the provisions of that Act. The decree was passed on 16th of April, 1926, and was executed on the 24th November, 1926. Its execution was not in accordance with the law, as laid down in the Act. Section 94 limits the time of execution of a decree for ejectment. It is definitely laid down there that the ejectment shall not take place before the first day of April or after the 20th day of June in any ...
Kalyan Das Vs. Jan Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All12
Sen, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal which arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,080 by enforcement of a mortgage, dated 28th August 1914, executed by one Faqire Lohar in favour of the appellant.2. The mortgage was to secure a debt of Rs. 135. The mortgagor was indebted to the plaintiff under two earlier bonds, dated 22nd January 1911, and 18th April 1912, and the amount due to the mortgagee under these prior mortgage bonds together with interest amounted to Rs. 119. Rs. 6 were paid for expenses relating to the completion and registration of the document in suit and Rs. 10 were received before the Sub-Registrar. A tiled katcha house was mortgaged to secure this debt.3. The stipulated rate of interest was Rs. 2 per mensem with monthly rests. The suit was instituted on 30th June 1925. The plaintiff claimed interest at Rs. 2 per mensem with annual rests.4. The property mortgaged originally belonged to Bhano and Manohar, who had purchased the same from one Mahesh Shukul under a sale...
Parsotam NaraIn and ors. Vs. Benares Bank Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All59
1. The suit which has given rise to the present appeal was instituted by the Benares Bank, Limited, against the defendants-appellants and certain other members of their family for recovery of Rs. 27,261-9-4 on foot of a mortgage, dated 1st September 1911.2. The mortgage in suit was executed by Babu Jagdish Narain for himself and as guardian of his minor sons, Parsotam Narain, Hari Narain and Maharaj Narain, and by Babu Raghubir Narain for himself and as guardian of his minor sons, Gopal Narain, Prahlad Narain and Narsingh Narain. Suraj Narain and Dip Narain, two adult sons of Jagdish Narain also joined in the mortgage. Substantial zemindari and house property was mortgaged to secure a debt of Rs. 28,000, and the stipulated rate of interest was twelve annas per cent. par mensem with half yearly rests. The mortgagors agreed to pay the mortgage money in five years. In the year 1913 the mortgagors paid two sums of money, viz., Rs. 3,500 and Rs. 628 4-9, to the plaintiff bank. In 1919 the m...
Net Ram Vs. Har Govind and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All764; 113Ind.Cas.755
1. This is a reference by the learned District Judge of Agra under Section 267, Agra Tenancy Act (No. 3 of 1926).2. Har Govind and others instituted a suit against Net Ram alleging him to be the sub-tenant of a holding, bearing No. 1439 and having an area of 16 biswas. Net Ram resisted the suit on the ground that he was not the sub-tenant of the plaintiff but he held the land as zamindar and the land in controversy was his khudkasht. This plea was repelled by the Assistant Collector, who found that the land was not the khudkasht of the defendant, and that the defendant was the sub-tenant of the plaintiff. He therefore granted the plaintiff a decree for ejectment. Net Ram preferred an appeal to the learned Commissioner of Agra Division, who returned the memorandum of appeal for presentation to the District Judge of Agra on the ground that the plea raised by the defendant involved a question of proprietary title and that the appeal lay to the District Judge and not to him. The District J...
In Re: Saraswati Trading Corporation Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All675
Mukerji, J.1. Pandit Subhkaran Upadhiya, contributory No. 69, has raised two objections to his being called upon to contribute towards liquidation of the company. The first is that he was sued by a former liquidator in the year 1918 in the City Munsif's Court at Jaunpur, and he was successful. In the circumstances, the present liquidators have no right to call on him to make the same payment through these proceedings. The second objection is that the present claim is barred by limitation.2. It has been contended on behalf of the liquidators that the City Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the decree that was made in the suit in 1918 does not operate as res judicata. On the question of limitation it is urged that these proceedings not being a suit the Limitation Act has no application.3. It appears to me that the powers of a voluntary liquidator are defined in Section 207, Companies Act. On the question of settlement of list of contributories Clause (5) of Section 207 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »