Allahabad Court May 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.
Bhairo Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All739
Boys, J.1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 168, I.P.C., read with Section 82, Municipalities Act, in that while he was a public servant, i.e. a Municipal Commissioner, he had an interest in a contract made with the Board. This application is only before me on the revisional side of the Court, but the facts are of such importance to the public that it is desirable that they should have full publicity. The facts found are that the Board had some difficulty is arranging for the supply of gram to the conservancy bullocks. Whether these difficulties were genuine difficulties or manufactured in order to prepare the way for entering into an irregular arrangement with the applicant, there is no evidence. The applicant in 1926 was a member of the firm of Gobindram Chunni Dal, grain-dealers. He apparently began to supply gram for the conservancy bullocks to the Board through his firm, Gobindram Chunnilal, on 5th May 1926. He apparently had either some doubts himself as to the risk...
Kallan Vs. Nanhe
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All701
Sen, J.1. This Court in its exercise the revisional jurisdiction is reluctant to interfere with an order passed by the Court below upon a technical ground of either an error of law or an irregularity of procedure. The revisional jurisdiction has to be exercised with a view to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The order passed by the Court below is preeminently just. The Court had beyond all doubt an inherent jurisdiction to overset its former order striking out the defence and passing an ex parte decree against the defendant. The mere fact-that the defendant had a right of appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, Clause (f), Civil P. C, from the order striking off his defence does not preclude the Court below from exercising its inherent jurisdiction in setting aside an ex parte decree which had been wrongly or illegally passed. The present application for revision does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 115, Civil P.C. I accordingly dismiss this application with costs including in ...
Muhammad Ahmad Khan Vs. Jai Chand Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All709
Sen, J.1. The plantiff's suit was for recovery of Rs. 146 on a promissory note dated 15th June 1926, alleged to have been executed by the two defendants Ali Akbar and Mohammad Ahmad Khan. Defendant 1 did not contest his liability. Defendant 2 repudiated his liability altogether. He denied the execution and the receipt of consideration and averred that he was not the executant of the instrument but only an attesting witness and had signed as such.2. The Court below overruled this contention and decreed the suit against both defendants. The finding is clear and categorical and is couched in these terms:The evidence of the plaintiff convinces me that both the defendants borrowed Rs. 85 from the plaintiff, that both of them executed and signed the promissory note in suit in Urdu and that defendant 2 was not only an attesting witness as is alleged by him.3. It is contended that inasmuch as the defendant had put in the word 'witness' before his signature in Urdu, the Court, below was not jus...
Rajdeo Vs. Nath Prasad Misra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All832
Sen, J.1. The discretion conferred upon this Court for interference under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is more extensive than the powers of this Court in a revision under Section 115, Civil P.C. Plaintiff sued the defendant for recovery of a certain sum of money on a bond alleged to have been executed by the defendant. The defendant appears to have admitted the execution of the bond but to have denied that the bond was for consideration. The onus of proving the absence of consideration was clearly upon the defendant. The Court below framed the issue namely:Is the bond for consideration.2. The suit was dismissed with the following finding:It appears that the bond is without consideration, The issue decided accordingly. Order: The suit fails and dismissed with costs.3. A Judge of the Court of Small Causes is not required under the law to write an elaborate judgment but there ought to be some indication in his judgment that he has applied a judicial mind to the case. Ther...
Wali Mohammad Vs. Ganpat and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All243
Sen, J.1. Ganpat and another obtained a money decree from the Court of Small Causes against one Baldeo for Rs. 144 and costs on 3rd August 1928. The decree-holders applied on 2nd August 1929 for execution of their decree by-arrest of the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor was arrested and brought in Court on 3rd August 1928. He asked for time to pay the decretal amount. The Court ordered him to produce a surety to guarantee his appearance in Court on the various and several dates when his attendance might be required. Wali Mohammad, the applicant, undertook to become a . surety for him and executed a surety bond on 3rd August 1928. He stipulated as follows:I, the executant, agree to become surety for , the judgment-debtor and covenant that I shall produce the judgment-debtor in Court on each and every occasion when his attendance is called for by the order of the Court.2. The Court directed that a month's time be allowed to the judgment-debtor to pay up the decretal amount, and the s...
Balmakund Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All1; 129Ind.Cas.258
Mears, C.J. 1. The question referred to this Bench is stated as follows by the Division Bench before whom the appeal came for hearing:The appellant in this case made a confession. As regards the fact of the murder, we have no doubt that he killed his wife, but in a, confession he alleges certain reasons which, if true, would have an important bearing upon the nature of our decision. The matters alleged by him in justification appear to us so unworthy of belief that no Court could act upon them.We are however told that the case of Jagdeo v. Emperor [1917] l8 Cr.L.J. 356 compels us to accept the confession as a whole, and that we are not able to choose that part of the confession which appeals to our reason and reject that which strikes us untrue and absurd.This is a matter of considerable importance, and it is desirable to have this question settled by a Pull Bench.2. The present Full Bench was accordingly appointed to decide the question 'whether the authority quoted above was correctl...
Sankatha Misir Vs. Bishwanath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All2; 129Ind.Cas.265
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is a reference from the Sessions Judge of Benares recommending that the order passed by the Magistrate in some proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C. be set aside and that a fresh inquiry be ordered by some other Magistrate. The Magistrate had followed the earlier provisions of Section 145, Criminal P.C., and had declared one of the disputing parties to be in possession of the land but the Sessions Judge held that as the Magistrate had only 'kept a memorandum of the evidence recorded by him in English' he had acted in a manner contrary to the provisions contained in Section 356, Criminal P.C., so that there was no legal evidence on which a finding could be based.2. The reference has been opposed by Mr. Ambika Prasad, who has argued that the Magistrate, in only recording a memorandum of the evidence, was not guilty of anything more than an error or irregularity which could be cured by Section 537, Criminal P.C.3. Under Section 145, Sub-clause (4), Criminal ...
Abdul Alim and anr. Vs. Abdul Hamid
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All866; 129Ind.Cas.375
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,692 being the rents of certain endowed property which were alleged to have been wrongfully appropriated by the defendant during a period of three years before the institution of the suit.2. The parties to the suit are own brothers, being the sons of one Sheikh Qadir Bakhsh Plaintiffs alleged that their father had* founded two mosques in Mohalla Andha ka Pul in Talia Bagh of the city of Benares and that under a registered instrument dated 28th April, 1910, he had endowed certain property for the upkeep of these mosques and had constituted himself the first mutawalli of the endowment and directed that after his death two of his sons, Sheikh Abdul Alim and Sheikh Abdurrauf would succeed to the mutawalliship. Haji Qadir Bakhsh died on 6th December, 1912. The endowed property consisted of a number of shops which are admittedly in the possession of tenants. In 1917 the names of the plaintiffs were mutated i...
Mani Ram Misra Vs. Purshotam Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All732
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff in the Court below is appellant before us. He sued the respondents for a declaration that he the plaintiff was the person who held a particular set of contracts obtained from the railway company, that the defendants worked as the plaintiff's servants and that all the profits received by the carrying out of the contract ought to go to the plaintiff. He sued for accounts besides for declaration.2. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that he used to take contracts from the railway company, but for certain reasons the railway company refused to grant him any further contract. In order to secure further contracts from the railway company he agreed with the defendants that defendant 1 would put himself forward as the applicant for the contracts and when the same were secured defendant 1 and defendant 2 would serve for a pay the plaintiff the real contractor.3. The defence to the suit was two fold. One was that the plaintiff's case was not true and the defendants w...
Gobindji and ors. Vs. Lallamul Hardeo Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All767
Bennet, J.1. These are two connected First Appeals No. 312 of 1928, by the minor defendants Gobindji and Rawanji and No. 476 of 1928, by the plaintiffs the firm of Lallamul Hardeo Das against a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Muttra in which the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed in full but certain of the mortgaged properties have been partly exempted. There were originally three minor defendants-appellants, but the minor Chirota died after the filing of the appeal, and his name has been expunged as his father Mohan is a party to the appeal.2. The plaintiff firm sued on a simple mortgage deed of 6th December 1921. Execution of this mortgage deed was denied, but it has been proved that it was executed by defendant 1 Jamna Prasad on his own behalf and as guardian of his minor son defendant 4 Sohan, and also executed by defendant 2 Kunj Behari Lal on his own behalf and as the guardian of his minor sons Gobindji and Rawanji the present defendants-appellants, and by Mohan, d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »