Allahabad Court November 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.
Anand Prakash and anr. Vs. NaraIn Das-dori Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All162
Sen, J.1. This and the connected Appeal raise the same questions of law and may be disposed of together.2. A creditor firm known by the style of Narain Das Dori Lal applied that the following six firms be adjudicated insolvents : (1) Hazari Lal Tota Ram of Bahjoi; (3) Bhekhari Das Hazari Lal of Bombay; (3) Bhekhari Das Hazari Lal of Jallandhar; (4) Bhekhari Das Hazari Lal of Hoshiarpur; (5) Bhekhari Das Ishar Das of Hapur and (6) Bhekhari Das Hazari Lal of Bahjoi. '3. The petitioning creditors staged in their application, dated 21st May 1925, that the partners of these firms were 29 in number and included Hazari Lal, Tota Sam and their minor sons. Anand Prakash is a minor son of Hazari Lal. Chaitan Sarup is a minor son of Tota Ram. It has not been controverted that Hazari Lal and Tota Ram, together with their sons, adults and minors, are members of a joint Hindu family. The application for adjudication was opposed, amongst others, by Anand Prakash and Chaitan Sarup upon a variety of gr...
Niaz Ahmad Khan and anr. Vs. Parsottam Chandra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All154; 129Ind.Cas.545
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 21st September 1923, for Rs. 20,000 carrying interest at 9 per cent per annum with annual rests. This document was executed probably in lieu of the amount due under an earlier bond of 13th December 1916, on the basis of which a preliminary decree had been passed. There was additional consideration of Rs. 1,200 which was paid in cash before the Sub-Registrar. The first document stood in favour of Jai Kishen Das, but the second document was taken in the name of his grandsons who were minors.2. The main defence to the suit was that the mortgage in question was without consideration and had been obtained fraudulently and it was also pleaded that it had not been properly attested. There was a. further plea that the integrity of the mortgage was broken. The learned Subordinate Judge has overruled all these contentions and decreed the claim. The defendants have appealed from the de...
Rikhai Lal Bindeshri Prasad Vs. Banarsi Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1932All139; 136Ind.Cas.569
Boys, J.1. This though an appeal under Order 41, Rule 11, we have heard at considerable length, because while we are of opipion that we are in this case invited to consider a finding of fact, we are also of opinion that a finding of negligence or a finding that there was or was not default is not necessarily in all cases a finding of fact, if the finding has not been approached from the proper legal standpoint.2. The plaintiff has proved that on 17th February 1925 he sent a registered and insure cover to a consignee in Calcutta, which cover is said to have contained a currency note of the value of one thousand rupees.3. In the ordinary course the plaintiff's doubts might have been expected to be aroused within a few weeks at the utmost if he did not receive either from the post office or his consignee an intimation that the insured letter had been duly delivered. The plaintiff has asked the Court to believe that his suspicions were not so aroused until a year later, when he received a ...
S. Marahmat HusaIn Vs. Oudh Commercial Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All320
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor against an order in execution passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Azamgarh. This order was passed in course of execution of a decree which had been passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Fyzabad in Suit No. 5 of 1913. (The Oudh Commercial Bank against Mt. Saleha Bibi and her husband Syed Riasat Husain judgment-debtors.) The procedure of the Court of Azamgarh has given rise to several objections which have been dismissed by that Court and which have been the subject of various grounds of appeal. The first objection which is taken is that on 24th November 1921 a certificate which is not before us as it is not on the record is said to have been issued by the Court at Azamgarh to the Court at Fyzabad. This certificate was apparently in printed Form 5 of App. E or possibly Form 4. Both are forms under Order 21, Rule 6. According to the lower Court on this certificate the words were written in regard to this execution proceeding:...
(Major) Anthony Ullyssess John and ors. Vs. Agra United Mills Ltd. and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All72
Mears, C.J.1. This appeal and the connected application for revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., are directed against an order passed by the Additional Sub-Judge of Agra, dated 5th September 1929. The initial question which calls for determination is whether the order is open to appeal or to revision in the alternative.2. The appellants during the pendency of Suit No. 84 of 1927, in which they figured as plaintiffs, applied for the appointment of a receiver under Order 40, Rule 1, Civil P.C. This application was granted on 30th November 1927 and one Mr. Raina was appointed. By order dated 17th January 1928 the salary of the receiver was fixed at Rs. 600 per mensem. The Court below did not definitely indicate in any of the aforesaid orders as to which of the parties should be liable to pay the salary or from what assets or funds the salary should be payable. The receiver was appointed at the instance of the plaintiffs and they appear to have understood that the salary of the receiver...
Behari Lal-ram Charan Vs. Badri Pershad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All129a
King, J.1. The appellant is a decree-holder who obtained a decree for money on 8th August 1928 against five judgment-debtors. The judgment-debtors-were divided into two parties, Nos. 1 to 3 forming one party and Nos. 4 and 5 the other party. Before the passing of this decree there had been a partition between the five defendants, and it was decided in the partition suit that defendants 1 to 3 would be liable for the debt due to the appellant. For that reason the Court, although passing the decree against the five defendants, made an order that the plaintiff (who is now the appellant before us) should at first try to realize the amount from defendants 1 to 3, and defendants 4 and 5 should help him in realizing the amount from them; but in case he fails to realize all the amount from defendants 1 to 3, and defendants 4 and 5 fail to help him in realizing the amount from defendants 1 to 3, then the plaintiff will be entitled to realize the amount, or any balance due to him from defendants...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›