Allahabad Court October 1930 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.
Bhola Nath-shankar Das Vs. Lachmi NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All83; 136Ind.Cas.84
Sen, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the decree of the learned District Judge of Farrukhabad, reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge of the same district in a suit in which the following reliefs were claimed:(a) It may be declared that the committee of the defendants is unlawful according to law. The principle on which they are working is against law and no British subject is bound by it nor are they competent to offer obstruction in the business of the plaintiffs.(b) A perpetual injunction may be issued to the defendants restraining them from doing the acts mentioned in para. 3 of the petition of plaint; and(c) Rs. 1,000 as damages caused to the plaintiffs from the acts of the defendants may be awarded from the defendants.2. Plaintiffs are members of a firm of commission agents who carry on business at Fatehgarh under the name and style of Bhola Nath-Shankar Das, The defendants are 17 in number and are members of an association unincorporated and unregistered, ...
Panna Lal and anr. Vs. Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All71
Bennet, J. 1. These are appeals brought by certain creditors against an order of the learned District Judge of Jhansi sitting as an insolvency Court dated 19th May 1929 in which he has refused to add the names of the applicants as creditors to whom distribution shall be made of the assets of a certain firm. This firm Abdulla Usman-Abdul Ghaffer was adjudicated insolvent in April 1927 on the application of certain creditors. The insolvent firm did not apply for discharge and accordingly on 29th April 1929 the Court directed that the insolvency should he annulled and that the assets in the hands of the receiver should be distributed among the creditors. That order has not been brought in appeal before us, but the applicants desire that they should also be added to the creditors to whom distribution should be made. After this order had been made the applicants applied to be added to the creditors and their applications were refused in the order of 19th May 1929 now before us in appeal. We...
(Babu) Ram Saran Das Vs. Pearey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All104
Sulaiman, J. 1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption by a Hindu pre-emptor of a house sold which is situated in mohalla Kauwa Tola in the city of Bareilly. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged that a custom of pre-emption prevailed in the entire city of Bareilly and especially in mohalla Azamnagar, whereof a number of 'mohallas' including Kauwa Tola formed part. The existence of the custom of pre-emption was denied by the defendants. The Court of first instance framed the issue: 'Is there any custom of pre-emption in the mohalla in suit,' and found that no such custom was established. In the grounds of appeal before the District Judge the plaintiff urged that the finding of the lower Court that the custom of pre-emption did not exist in mohalla Kauwa Tola was erroneous. The learned Judge's judgment also shows that he applied his mind principally to the question whether the alleged custom of pre-emption obtaining in the said mohalla (Kauwa Tola) did not exist. He...
Babu Ram Saran Das Vs. Pearay Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.217
1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption by a Hindu pre-emptor of a house sold which is situated in muhalla Kauwa Tola in the city of Bareilly. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged that a custom of pre-emption prevailed in the entire city of Bareilly and especially in muhalla Azamnagar,, whereof a number of 'muhallas' including Kauwa Tola formed part. The existence of the custom of pre emption was denied by the defendants. The Court of first instance framed the issue: 'Is there any custom of pre emption in the muhalla in suit,' and found that no such custom was established. In the grounds of appeal before the District Judge the plaintiff urged that the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the custom of pre-emption did not exist in muhalla Kauwa Tola was erroneous. The learned Judge's judgment also shows that he applied his mind principally to the question whether the alleged custom of pre-emption obtaining in the said muhalla (Kauwa Tola) did or did not exis...
Shib Charan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All49
ORDERKing, J.1. This is an application in revision against an appellate order of the learned Sessions Judge of Mearut convicting the applicant under Section 411, I. I? C. The accused was charged in the trial Court with kidnapping a boy from the lawful guardianship of his father and with having stolen a hundred rupee note, under Sections 363 and 379, I. P.C. The trial Magistrate convicted the accused under both sections. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction under Section 363 on the ground that it was at least doubtful whether the boy whom the accused had taken away, was under the age of fourteen years on the date of the alleged offence.2. With reference to the conviction under Section 379 the Judge found that the evidence did not prove that the accused himself, committed the theft of the note. The facts alleged by the prosecution were that the boy himself stole the note from his father, at the instigation of the accused, and made it over to the accused. On these...
Nek Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All273; 129Ind.Cas.267
Bennet, J.1. This is an application on behalf of one Nek Ram asking that either a charge framed against him should be cancelled or that the case should be transferred to another Magistrate. The facts of the case, so far as relevant to this application, are shown by the record and an affidavit. On 27th July 1930 it is admitted that Birendra, a young man of twenty years, who is also an accused, took two rupees and went to a shop of Ram Babu at a short distance from the shop of the applicant Nek Ram. Birendra is a servant of Nek Ram and works in his shop which is for drugs. Ram Babu found that the two rupees were false and he handed the boy Birendra over to the police. The defence is that two customers had come to the shop of Nek Ram before it was open at twelve o'clock and that these customers had given the two rupees asking that the boy Birendra should bring change, and that these two customers subsequently disappeared when Birendra was arrested and a crowd collected. It was also the de...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›