Allahabad Court February 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.
Benares Bank Limited Vs. Ram Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All573
Niamatullah, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits brought by the Benares Bank Limited, plaintiff-appellant, before the Munsif, Benares City, for recovery of certain sums of money. One of these suits was brought against (1) Ram Prasad, (2) Mahadeo Prasad and (3) Mahabali Prasad, the three defendants on the allegations that defendant 3 had a savings bank account with the plaintiff's bank; that there was collusion between him and Ram Prasad the clerk in charge of the savings bank account, and Mahadeo Prasad, another employee of the bank; and that though Mahabali Prasad had only Rs. 101-3-1 to his credit, not less than Rs. 800 were drawn, Rs. 200 on 3rd February 1924, by Mahadeo Prasad on the authority of a letter alleged to have been written by Mahabali Prasad, Rs. 200 on 23rd January 1924, Rs. 200 on 25th January 1924, and Rs. 200 on 13th February 1924, by Mahabali Prasad himself knowing that be had not enough money to his credit and that Ram Prasad the clerk in charge who was i...
Ratan Lal Vs. Hafiz Abdul Hai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All734
Dalal, J.1. This is a civil revision, as the only question which may arise is that of jurisdiction. On facts the decision of the Additional District Judge of Meerut is binding.2. An Assistant Collector of the First Class granted sanction for the prosecution of Hafiz Abdul Hai under certain sections of the Penal Code. He appealed under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C. and filed the appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge of Meerut sitting at Muzaffarnagar. That Judge allowed the appeal, and hence the complainant has come hero in revision. Two points are raised to prove want of jurisdiction of the lower appellate Court:1. That in a case like the present no appeal lay under Section 476-B; and 2. That the Additional District Judge of Meerut sitting at Muzaffarnagar had no jurisdiction to receive the appeal.3. A third point was raised that the transfer to the Court of the Temporary Additional Judge was invalid. This argument may be easily disposed of. If the appeal was validly file...
The Benares Bank Limited Vs. Ram Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1930
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.180
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits brought by the Benares Bank, Limited, plaintiff-appellant, before the Munsif, Benares City, for recovery of certain sums of money. One of these suits was brought against (1) Ram Prasad, (2) Mahadeo Prasad and (3) Mahabali Prasad, the three defendants, on the allegations that defendant No. 3 had a savings bank account with the plaintiff's Bank, that there was a collusion between him and Bam Prasad the clerk in charge of the saving bank account and Mahadeo Prasad another employee of the Bank, and that though Mahabali Prasad had only Rs. 101-3-1 to his credit, not less then Rs. 800 were drawn, Rs. 200 on the 23rd February, 1924, by Mahadeo Prasad on the authority of a letter alleged to have been written by Mahabali Prasad, Rs. 200 on the 3rd January, 1924, Rs. 200 on the 25th of January, 1924, and Rs. 200 on the 13th of February, 1924, by Mahabali Prasad himself knowing that he had not enough money to his credit and that Ram Prasad the clerk in ...
Amba Prasad and ors. Vs. Moonga Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All523
Mukerji, J.1. The facts of the case are complicated and will have to be gone into at some length.2. It appears that a 10 biswas share in village Mangora, as described in the plaint, was under a very ancient usufructuary mortgage with one Mr. Wright, in or about 1838. On 19th March 1874 some of the persons in whom the right to redeem was vested made a mortgage of the same property, viz., 10 biswas share, in favour of Durga Prasad, a predecessor-in-title of the appellants before us. The mortgage in favour of Mr. Wright was for Rs. 2,200. The mortgage that was made in favour of Durga Prasad was for Rs. 2,800. Durga Prasad was also one of the persons entitled to share in the property, as a co-mortgagor. It was therefore agreed that Durga Prasad should pay down in cash Rs. 800 to his mortgagors and should pay Rs. 2,200 to Mr. Wright or his successor-in-title for redemption. The difference between Rs. 2,200 and Rs. 2,800 was to be provided for by Durga Prasad himself, inasmuch as Durga Prasa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›