Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All887
1. This is a case in which the Bench has been constituted to hear an objection by the Bar Council to enrolling a gentleman as an advocate of this Court who is already enrolled as a vakil of the Court. The applicant for enrollment, Mr. Raj Narain, took his degree of Bachelor of Laws at Lucknow University in 1928. On 24th July 1928, he was enrolled as a vakil of this Court. He subsequently went to Ajmere. His counsel, Mr. Shabd Saran, cannot inform us in virtue of what authority Mr. Raj Narain began to practise in Ajmere, but we have little doubt that we are right in assuming that he applied to be enrolled as a pleader entitled to practise in Ajmere under Regn. 9 of 1926. He now has applied for the entry of his name as an advocate on the rolls of this Court by virtue of the rules made under Section 9, Bar Councils Act (38 of 1926), and in particular, of Rule 1, Proviso (a) which reads as follows:Provided, firstly, that a person who is a graduate in law of any such scheduled University......
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All267
King, J.1. This is an application in revision by the Local Government-against an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Agra setting aside the conviction and sentence of Prem Narain under Section 409, I. P.C., on the ground of misjoinder of charges, and directing a retrial. The accused Prem Narain was a clerk in the Cantonment-Board Office and he was charged with having embezzled sums of money entrusted to him in his capacity as a public servant. Evidence was led to show that there had been embezzlements amounting to about Rs. 1,500 but the charge against the accused was that he had embezzled four sums of money on or about 9th January, 5th February and 13th February 1929. It. must be observed that only one charge was framed in which all the four sums of money, said to have been embezzled, are specified, and the dates of the alleged embezzlements are also specified.2. It will be noticed that the embezzlements are said to have taken place on three dates and four items are speci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All636
Sulaiman, J.1. A suit for recovery of money was instituted against five defendants. The first Court decreed the claim against defendants 3, 4 and 5 but dismissed it as against defendants 1 and 2. The decree of the first Court was passed on 12th May 1923. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff from that portion of the decree which dismissed his claim against defendants 1 and 2. He impleaded defendants 1 and 2 only in the appeal and did not implead the remaining defendant 5, namely Mohan, died on 28th July 1926. On 28th October 1926, the appeal was allowed by the High Court. In the course of the judgment it was pointed out that defendants 1 and 2 were also liable. The form in which the decree was prepared was to the effect that the plaintiff's suit was decreed against all the defendants.2. An application for execution of the decree against the heirs of defendant 5 was filed on 18th September 1928, in which it was recited that there had been two previous applications for execution on 17...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All641
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the District Magistrate and Collector of Agra including the name of Kapoor Chand in a list of touts under Section 36, Legal Practitioners Act, framed and published by him. A preliminary objection is taken that no revision lies. We think that this question is now concluded by the opinion expressed in Kashi Nath v. Emperor A.I.R. 1924 All. 69, where following an earlier case in the matter of the petition of Madho Ram [1899] 21 All. 181, it was remarked that this Court could interfere in the exercise of the general powers of superintendence conferred upon it by Section 15, High Courts Act, 1871 and Section 107, Government of India Act. We may point out that although this objection was not raised, another Bench also did entertain the application in Ghafoor Khan v. Emperor 0043/1928 : AIR1928All334 .2. On the merits we find that the order of the District Magistrate and Collector cannot be supported. Instead of making an enqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All752
Sulaiman, J.1. Lala Badri Prasad is one of the numerous persons who has been declared a tout by an order of the District and Sessions Judge of Agra. The only evidence against Badri Prasad is a resolution of the Bar Association passed at a meeting on 22nd November 1928 declaring him to be a tout. The report received from the Bar Association showed that there were in all 94 members of the Association, but only 67 out of these were actually present on 22nd November 1928 when the resolution was considered. The voting showed that 26 voted in favour of the resolution and 14 against it. The rest obviously remained neutral.2. Ordinarily a mere resolution of an association of this kind cannot be legal evidence against a person when he is accused of any charge. But the explanation added to Section 36, by the Legal Practitioners Amendment Act(Act 15 of 1926), provides that the passing of a resolution declaring any person to be or not to be a tout by a majority of the members present at a meeting,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All796
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision by Riyazuddin from an order of the District and Sessions Judge of Agra declaring him a tout. The notice to show cause was served on 18th December 1928 just a few days before the Xmas holidays commenced. The affidavit filed before us shows that on that date his child was seriously ill and died on 22nd December 1928. On the re-opening of the Court he applied on 2nd January 1929 for the issue of summonses to a number of witnesses including seven vakils who were practising in the District Court. There is no doubt that he applied rather late, but the delay is now explained by his affidavit. The learned Judge instead of issuing summonses and allowing the applicant to take the risk if they were not served in time declined to issue the summonses and directed him to produce affidavits from these vakils. It is quite obvious that the applicant had no power to compel these vakils to swear affidavits although he could have easily got them summoned a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All646
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order filing the award and framing the decree in terms of it. This was a partition suit in which there were a number of defendants, including defendant 7, who was a minor. His father was dead, and his mother was appointed as guardian ad litem for the suit. It appears that his grandfather is also alive and is a party to the suit. Without any reference to the guardian ad litem of the minor the other parties referred their disputes to arbitration, and the minor's uncle professed to act as the guardian of the minor. On the reference having been made an award was delivered which has bean accepted by the Court on the ground that, although there is nothing to show that the minor's guardian ad litem had agreed to this reference, the award appears to be not prejudicial to the minor.2. It seems to us that the Court below has taken an erroneous view of the situation. Under B. 1, Sch. 2, it was incumbent on the Court to see that all persons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All758
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application for revision by the plaintiff from an order of the Subordinate Judge dismissing her application for leave to sue in forma pauperis. The learned Judge has dismissed the application on two grounds:(1) That the case is 'apparently founded on weak grounds' i.e., 'the case is weak on merits'; and(2) that the Government pleader intimated his intention to dispute the allegations of the applicant's pauperism.2. The Court did not proceed to enquire as to whether the plaintiff was in reality a pauper or not, but merely considered her case to be weak on the merits, although the time for the production of her evidence had not yet arrived. The ground for the dismissal of the application is not that the application was no6 properly framed and presented or that the applicant was not a pauper or that she had acted in any way fraudulently, or that her allegations showed no cause of action or that she had entered into an agreement with another person who has obtaine...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All276
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order setting aside an award on the ground that the arbitrator was guilty of legal misconduct inasmuch as he had made confidential enquiries behind the back of the plaintiff. It is well settled that, unless expressly authorized to do so, an arbitrator cannot be allowed to make private enquiries and allow himself to be influenced by evidence which either party has no opportunity to check or meet: Daya Kishen v. Dharam Das [1907] 4 A.L.J. 159. The reference to arbitration directed him to make 'enquiries,' which cannot mean secret or private enquiries. The application has no force and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All604a
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from a decree of the Munsif in a suit for ejectment of the defendant from a house and for recovery of rent. The defendant in his written statement had taken a number of pleas, but on the date fixed for hearing he got the case adjourned to another date. On this date although the plaintiff and his pleader were present, the defendant and his pleader were absent. This was not a case where the pleader appeared and applied for adjournment and then withdrew when the adjournment was refused but a case where the pleader did not appear at all. The learned Judge examined the plaintiff and passed an ex parte order against the defendant. The defendant did not choose to appeal from this decree to the District Judge but applied to the Munsif for setting aside the ex parte decree. This application was refused. He then appealed from the order refusing to set aside the decree to the District Judge and his appeal failed. He now applies to the High Court f...
Tag this Judgment!