Allahabad Court January 1929 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Bashir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All267a
1. This is a reference made through the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur at the request of the District Magistrate of Saharanpur asking this Court to enhance the sentence of a fine of Rs. 50 or three months' rigorous imprisonment in default passed on Bashir, accused, on 10th October 1928, under Section 411, I.P.C. The accused was tried summarily. It is said to have transpired since, that the accused had been convicted on 21st May 1923, under Section 379, I.P.C., and bound over for six months under Section 562, Criminal P.C., and further convicted on 22nd December 1924, under Section 457/75, I P.C. and sentenced to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 50 fine or two months rigorous imprisonment in default.2. Admittedly these two previous convictions were not brought to the notice of the trial Magistrate in any way whatever. It is admitted on behalf of the Crown that 'the investigating officer failed to mention them in his charge-sheet,' and further that 'no blame appears to attach to th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Prem
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All270
1. This is a reference made to us through the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur by the District Magistrate of Saharanpur asking for an enhancement of the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment passed upon Prem under Section 457, I.P.C. The facts of this case are somewhat different to Emperor v. Bashir A.I.R. 1920 All. 267 (2), from the same district of which we have just disposed. In that case there was no question but that the negligence which led to the omission to take into consideration the previous convictions was due solely to the negligence of the investigating or prosecuting officers. The Magistrate was not in the remotest degree to blame. In this case we have read the various explanations and orders dealing with the fact that three previous convictions were not given, at any rate, full weight in awarding the sentence. It is unnecessary to examine the case in detail.2. It appears that the convictions were set out in detail in the charge sheet seat up by the police. They were ...
Tag this Judgment!Hanwant Rai Vs. Chandi Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All293
1. This is an appeal by one who was arrayed as defendant 1 in the original suit. The suit arose under the following circumstances: The appellant Hanwant Rai sold, on 12th February 1912, a certain amount of property to Mulai and two others for the sum of Rs. 9,000. Kauleshar Rai, who has since died, brought a suit for preemption on 7th September 1912 and obtained a decree, on condition of payment of the entire consideration of the money of Rs. 9,000, on 25th January 1913. He deposited the money that he was required to do under the decree and obtained delivery of possession. The appeal to the High Court was dismissed. Kauleshar and his joint brothers who are plaintiffs 3 and 4 in this action, sold a half share in the property pre-empted to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 of the suit and three others, on 6th August 1916. The sons of Hanwant Rai challenged the sale made by their father, by suit No. 79 of 1919, and, eventually, got a decree for possession from the Court of first instance and also by...
Tag this Judgment!Sarju Kumar Mukerji Vs. B. Dwarka Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All296
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent B. Dwarka Prasad against two defendants, the second of whom, Rai Bahadur Dr. Sarju Kumar Mukerji is the appellant before us. The suit was based on a mortgage bond dated 20th February 1918 executed by defendant 1 Inayat Husain for a sum of Rs. 2,300, principal. The appellant was made a party expressly on the ground of being a subsequent transferee and his status as a prior mortgagee was denied, in the plaint. The appellant obtained a mortgage by conditional sale in his favour from Inayat Husain and others on 18th December 1920 in respect of a large number of properties including a share (now principally in dispute) in the village Palohi.2. There were five other mortgages over some or other of the properties mortgaged to the appellant. These mortgages are given in some detail in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Allahabad dated 18th February 1925, and printed at p. 9 of the record. The appellant, having sa...
Tag this Judgment!(Bohra) Hukum Singh Vs. Surajpal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All337
Dalal, J.1. The learned Judge of Agra, Mr. Bennet, amended a judgment and decree of his predecessor-in-office Mr. Herchenroder on the ground of an accidental slip. A decree-holder failed in the execution Court to obtain sale of certain trees and materials of a house of a judgment-debtor in the execution Court. The judgment-debtor was a tenant and the trees grew on his holding and he was a licensee of the house. The decree-holder thereupon brought a declaratory suit that the trees and the materials of the house were saleable in execution of his decree. The suit was decreed with respect to both the trees and the materials by the trial Court of the Munsif of Agra. An appeal was taken to the Court of the District Judge and Mr. Herchenroder, Additional District Judge, decided it. In the operative part of the order he appears to have made the mistake of transposing the words 'materials of the house' and 'trees.' His judgment shows that he held the materials of the house liable to sale but no...
Tag this Judgment!Surjan Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All278
Dalal, J.1. I do not agree with the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge The applicant has been convicted of bringing out of the limits of the Jhansi Municipal Board certain parts of a motor car, without paying octroi duty. The learned Judge held that these parts were chargeable with duty, because under Sub-section 16, Section 132, Municipal Account. Code, motor cars complete are exempted from payment of octroi but not parts and accessories of motor cars. This means that the Municipality is prepared to admit a camel but will strain at a gnat. On behalf of the accused it is argued that he can obtain exemption under Sub-section 14, which exempts from octroi duty machinery and its component parts. Machinery is defined as a machine or a set of machines to be worked by electric, steam, water, fire or other power not being manual or animal labour. The machine of a motor car will certainly be included under this head together with its component parts. The argument of the learned Judge, howev...
Tag this Judgment!Zorawar Singh and anr. Vs. Dip Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All331
Dalal, J.1. This is a second appeal by two defendants known as defendants 1 and 2 in the original suit. Their father was mortgagee of a certain property by virtue of an old mortgage. The mortgagors were Dip Chand, plaintiff and his brother, Chhidda, who died leaving a widow, Mt. Kokla. On 11th January 1919 Mt. Kokla sold half the right of equity of redemption in the property to the defendant Gopi with a declaration that it belonged to her. Thereupon the father of defendants 1 and 2 pre-empted the property by a suit filed in 1920. The present suit was filed by Dip Chand on 10th August 1925 for a declaration that Dip Chand and Chhidda were members of a joint Hindu family, that Mt. Kokla had no rights in the property, Dip Chand having become owner of the entire equity of redemption by right of survivorship on the death of Chhidda, that no rights passed to Gopi by the sale, that no rights passed to the father of defendants 1 and 2 under the decree for pre-emption and that the relation of m...
Tag this Judgment!Hansraj and ors. Vs. Official Liquidators Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All353
Boys, J.1. This case arises out of an order of Mukerji, J., dated 19th July 1927, made in winding up proceedings.2. A Letters Patent appeal was filed from that order and came up for hearing before Sulaiman, J., and Weir, J. Those two learned Judges were to some extent but not wholly in agreement, and the case has been referred to the present Bench consisting of King, J., Niamatullah, J., and myself for an expression of ouropinion on the question of law raised in the appeal as regards the extent of the jurisdiction vested in the Company Judge under Section 171 in the matter of granting leave to a mortgagee decree-holder.3. This question I shall re-draft presently.4. The case has been referred to us for our opinion under Clause 27, Letters Patent. That clause requires the Judges who have differed to 'state the point upon which they differ.' In the form in which it has been referred to us we have had to ascertain from the record (there were no less than 10 grounds of appeal), and from the...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Fahiman and ors. Vs. Awadh Behari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All279
Dalal, J.1. This Court had the advantage of having all the law on the subject placed before him with great care by Mr. Sinha and by Mr. Pande. The applicants are decree-holders and they complained that the final foreclosure decree passed under Order 34, Rule 3, Civil P.C., for foreclosure in favour of the plaintiff has been set aside by the trial Court without jurisdiction. This was their main ground of attack. Mr. Sinha, however, developed his argument and submitted that even if the trial Court had jurisdiction it was not properly exercised. The suit on the mortgage resulted in a preliminary decree for foreclosure in pursuance of a compromise between the parties according to which the plaintiff was held entitled to recover a certain amount of money from the defendant. The conditions were that the amount should be paid within nine months; that on such payment the property would be held to have been redeemed, and on nonpayment the property was to be foreclosed. There could not be any fo...
Tag this Judgment!Khair-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Oudh Commercial Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All287
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this Court. She instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen under the following circumstances: The Oudh Commercial Bank Ltd., Fyzabad, who is the respondent in this appeal, obtained a decree for sale on foot of a mortgage executed by two persons, viz. Saliha Bibi and her husband Riasat Husain. Saliha Bibi was a first paternal cousin of the plaintiff and according to the Shia law to which Saliha Bibi was subject, on her death, the plaintiff became the sole heir of her property. The decree was passed against Saliha Bibi and her husband and was followed by a final decree for sale on 16th December 1915. When the final decree was passed, an appeal against the preliminary decree was pending in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Lucknow. That Court dismissed the appeal against the preliminary decree on 26th July 1916. Riasat Husain died in June 1916 and Saliha Bibi died in December 1918. There was a dispute as to who should succ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »