Allahabad Court November 1929 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.
In Re: Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd., Hansraj Gupta an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All357
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the legal representatives of one Lala Raghu Mal to have their names removed from the list of contributories.2. This application has been made as the result of our judgment delivered on 14th May 1929. It appears that Lala Raghu Mal subscribed for a number of shares. Later on, on 12th August 1922, he was induced to subscribe for a large number of further shares (Rs. 10,000 ordinary shares at Rs. 10 each and 250 preference shares at Rs. 100 each). On the same day, he made applications for shares and the Managing Agent of the company handed over to him a draft letter, which the company was to send, later on, in confirmation of the arrangement, in view of which Lala Raghu Mal subscribed for the additional shares. On 13th September 1923, the company confirmed the arrangement, by three letters, copies of which are to be found in the affidavit filed with the petition, under paras. 7 and 8. By virtue of the letters written by the company the rep...
Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. Hansraj Gupta and ors. V ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.819
1. This is an application on behalf of the legal representatives of one Lala Raghu Mal to have their names removed from the list of contributories.2. This application has been made as the result of our judgment delivered on 14th May, 1929. It appears that Lala Raghu Mal subscribed for a number of shares. Later on, on 12th August, 1922, he was induced to subscribe for a large number of further shares (10,000 ordinary shares at Rs. 10 each and 250 preference shares at Rs. 100 each). On the same day he made applications for shares, the Managing Agent of the Company handed over to him a draft letter, which the Company was to send, later on, in confirmation of the arrangement, in view of which Lala Raghu Mal subscribed for the additional shares. On 13th September, 1923, the Company confirmed the arrangement, by three letters, copies of which are to be found in the affidavit filed with the petition, under paras. 7 and 8. By virtue of the letters written by the Company the representatives) of...
Nannu Mal Vs. Ram Chander and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1931All277
ORDERMukerji, J.1. This is an offshoot, as it were, of Second Appeal No. 1490 of 1926 decided by us on 8th November 1929, Nannu Mal v. Ramcharan Lal A.I.R. 1930 All. It appears that in execution of a prior mortgage held by two persons Ram Charan Lal and Ganga Sahai, the mortgaged property was sold and was purchased partly by the prior mortgagees and partly by defendants 4 to 7 in the suit. There was a second mortgage in favour of Nannu Mal the plaintiff, although the deed stood benami in the name of Kundan Lal plaintiff 2. The second mortgagee was not a party to the suit of the prior mortgagee. The auction-purchasers Nos. 4 to 7 have built a small house on a part of the property purchased by them. Their contention is that either the plaintiff Nannu Mal should pay them the value of the building erected by them which value has been estimated at Rs. 200 or these defendants should be allowed to remove the materials of the building before the sale takes place.2. The Court of first instance ...
Sri Nath and ors. Vs. Jagannath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All292
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property by avoidance of a sale-deed dated 13th September 1910, executed by Mathura Prasad, the ancestor of the plaintiffs, in favour of defendant 1. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the vendee and are joint with him. Almost all the members of Mathura Prasad's family, eleven in number, excluding one son Ram Partap and one grandson Bhairon Prasad who have been impleaded as pro forma defendants, have joined in the suit. A large number of these plaintiffs are still minors. The case put forward in the plaint was that Mathura Prasad was a very old, deaf and blind person and was a member of a joint Hindu family which owned the property in dispute jointly; that the defendant obtained a sale-deed from Mathura Prasad of property worth Rs. 10,000 on the date mentioned above without any legal necessity or without any need for the payment of any antecedent debt for a sum of Rs. 6,000 only, wh...
In Re: Union Indian Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All330
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the Official Liqudators asking the Court to proceed to carry out the orders passed by their Lordships of the Privy Council.2. A short history of the case will be necessary to appreciate the situation. When the Union Indian Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., was ordered by the Court to be wound up, the question arose as to how money was to be raised in order to pay off the creditors. The usual method was to sell the assets of the company and raise money and accordingly the method was adopted and advertisements for sale of the mills were put in papers. For the present moment we will skip over what happened, till Mr. Kamlapat appeared on the scene with his offers. It may be mentioned here once for all that Mr. Kamlapat is the principal actor in the scene and Mr. Motilal's name was joined at his instance, probably because that gentleman was a partner or relation to Lala Kamlapat. It would be enough to continue the history with the name of Mr. Kamlapat a...
Brijraj Saran Sing Vs. Sisram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All91a; 122Ind.Cas.415
Dalal, J.1. Mr. Malik on behalf of the respondent Sisram tenant judgment-debtor has objected that no second appeal lies to this Court. The decree-holder desired to execute his decree for arrears of rent by ejectment of Sisram. Sisram objected that the decree-holder's property had at present vested in a receiver and that, therefore, the decree holder could not execute a decree for possession relating to property which was no longer in his possession. This defence was not accepted by the trial Court of the Assistant Collector who by an order dismissed the objection and directed execution to proceed by ejectment of Sisram. This was certainly an order in the execution department and not a decree as defined by Section 2(14), Agra Tenancy Act. According to that definition 'decree' means any order which so far as the revenue Court is concerned finally disposes of a suit. The direction of the Assistant Collector did not dispose of any suit and so did not amount to a decree. From that order an ...
Jaggu Mal Vs. Brij Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All127; 122Ind.Cas.685
1. This a Letters Patent Appeal against the decree of a learned Judge of this Court refusing the appeal of one Jaggu Mal who was plaintiff in one suit and defendant in the other. These suits related chiefly to parnalas and an application was jointly made by the parties to the Munsif asking him to make an inspection of the locality to see and decide the matters in question and in place of evidence the Munsif might ask questions 'on the spot. Accordingly, the Munsif made a decision and an appeal was brought by Jaggu Mal against that decision. We agree with the learned Judge of this Court in holding that it was not open to Jaggu Mal to bring in an appeal after he had agreed to the Munsif deciding the case in the manner mentioned above. It is not open to a party to ask for a departure from the ordinary course of procedure and require a Court to decide questions of fact in this manner by local inspection and oral statements on the spot, and then come forward and ask an appellate Court to de...
Mul Chand and anr. Vs. Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All471
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal in an insolvency matter, by the insolvents Mul Chand and Jagannath, who are brothers.2. It appears that the appellants were declared insolvents and they were directed to apply for discharge within one year of their adjudication. They accordingly applied and the learned Judge has rejected that application. Hence the appeal.3. The judgment of the learned District Judge, who is the insolvency Judge in this ease, is rather short and runs as follows:This is an application for discharge. Not an anna has been paid. The debts are Rs. 6,000 or 7,000. The applicants had apparently a large business. They have produced no books. They had some zamindari property and some houses which were sold in execution of decrees but only after the amounts due had been expended by delay and unavailing litigation. The applicants are not entitled to a discharge. The application is rejected.4. It appears to me that the learned Judge has not taken into consideration whether the appel...
Gobardhan Vs. Raghubir Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All101
1. Second appeals 1684 of 1926 and 559 of 1927 arise out of the same suit brought by Badri Singh, Baldeo Singh and Raghubir Singh for redemption, on foot of two documents, one dated 10th July 1917 and the other dated 11th July 1917, alleged to evidence a transaction of mortgage, and in the alternative for possession of the property in suit on foot of the second of the two documents treating it as an agreement to reconvey the property. The facts in detail are these: Gayadin was originally the owner of the property in dispute. By the earlier deed above mentioned he purported to sell the property for Rs. 1400 to Gobardhan appellant before this Court. By the second of those deeds Gobardhan, the vendee, agreed to reconvey the property sold to him by the first deed, on receipt of Rs. 1,400 to Gayadin or his male lineal descendants at any time they or any of them desired to repurchase, Gayadin died, and Raghubir, plaintiff 3, is his son and legal representative. It has been found by the lower...
Mohammad Abdullah Khan Vs. Ford and Macdonald Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All124
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff brought a suit alleging that arrears of pay were due to him and that he had paid money for and on behalf of the defendant company. He claimed in all on account of pay Rs. 185 and on account of money that he had paid on behalf of the defendant company the sum of Rs. 206. He also claimed a certain amount of interest on the amount due to him.2. The pay was for November and December 1922 and for ten days in January 1923. The plaintiff left the employment of the defendant or was dismissed on 11th January 1923. On 9th January 1926 the suit was filed. Both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court have found that the claims on both heads with the exception of ten days' pay in January 1923 are barred by limitation. The plaintiff on appeal and the Courts below relied upon a letter written by the managing director of defendant company on 25th March 1924 as an acknowledgment. This would start the period of limitation running afresh.3. The defenda...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »