Allahabad Court July 1931 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.
Chedi Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All187; 140Ind.Cas.116
ORDERBajpai, J.1. Chhedi has been convicted by a Magistrate of the First Class under Section 60(a), United Provinces Excise Act, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50. His conviction was affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Benares, but the imprisonment was reduced to three months. He has come up in revision 'before this Court and Mr. Saila Nath Mukerji appearing on his behalf has taken the point that the Magistrate having no jurisdiction to try the case the conviction is bad in law.2. The way in which this contention has Keen developed before me is that under Section 70, Local Act 4 of 1910, no Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 60 except on his own knowledge or suspicion or on the complaint or report of an excise officer. The present trial proceeded on the report of a Sub-Inspector of Police, and it is argued that a Sub-Inspector of Police is not an excise officer within the meaning of Section 3, Sub-...
Secretary of State Vs. Basant Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All317; 140Ind.Cas.27
Mukerji, J.1. Today the learned Government Advocate has appeared on behalf of the Crown, and states thatthe Income-tax Commissioner in whose time the order of this Court was passed evidently considered that the High Court's judgment did not have the effect of rendering assessment liable to alteration. It was therefore not reconsidered. In a technical sense this view was not entirely correct but the result of such recalculation would probably have left the tax unaffected and the practical effect of the assessment would have been nil. As to the future the matter lies with the High Court. If the High Court holds that its judgment rendered assessment liable to alteration and will clearly indicate in what respect alteration is needed the directions will of course be followed and assessable income recalculated.2. The statement of the learned Government Advocate shows that the Commissioner in whose time the judgment was made is no longer holding the position and it is not clearly found under ...
Ram Kishen and anr. Vs. Radhey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All130
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by the minor defendants 4 and 5.2. The facts briefly are these: A suit for sale was brought by one Lala Bithal Das against the mortgagors and two persons, Baidy Ram and Munni, as subsequent transferees. When Baidy Earn died, his sons Earn Kishen and Lachman, the present appellants, were brought on the re-cord. The plaintiffs applied that Chunna Ram, the paternal uncle of the minors, Ram Kishen and Lachman, should be appointed their guardian for the suit.3. A notice was issued to Chunna Ram to state to the Court whether he was willing to accept the appointment or not, and he was to appear on 15th August 1927. The notice was served on Chunna Ram on 5th August 1927, but he did not appear on 15th August 1927. On the latter date the Courtdirected that the case should proceed ex parte against the minors, Ram Kishen and Lachman. There is no formal order appointing Chunna Ram as the guardian for the suit of the minor defendants.4. On 15th August 1927, it was rep...
Mt. Siddiqunnisa Bibi Vs. NizamuddIn Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All215
JUDyGMENTSulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal by the maternal grandmother of Mt. Wajida Khatun from an order of the District Judge of Ghazipur directing that she should make over the child who was about seven years old to the respondent, her father. The mother of the girl died a few days after her birth at Sasaram which is the residence of the father; the maternal grandmother is residing in another district at Zamania. The girl was undoubtedly allowed to be brought by the grandmother from Sasaram to Zamania and has for these years been maintained and brought up by the appellant. An application was made by the maternal grandmother that she should be appointed the guardian of her person Objections were filed by the father, the grandfather, as well as the paternal grandmother to the appointment of the maternal grandmother as her guardian and there was also a prayer that either of these persons be appointed a guardian of her person. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that ...
Ram Kishan and anr. Vs. (Radehy Lal) Gopinath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1931
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.562
1. This is art appeal by the minor defendants Nos. 1 and 5.2. The facts briefly are these. A suit for sale was brought by one Lala Bithal Das against the mortgagors, and two persons, Baidy Ram and Munni, as subsequent transferees When Baidy Ram died, his sons Ram Kishen and Lachman, the present appellants, were brought on the record. The plaintiff applied that Chunna Ram, the paternal uncle of the minors, Ram Kishen and Lachman, should be appointed their guardian for the suit.3. A notice was issued to Chunna Ram to state to the Court whether he was willing to accept the appointment or not, and he was to appear on the 15th August, 1927. The notice was served on Chunna Ram on the 5th August, 1927, but he did not appear on the 15th August, 1927. On the latter crate, the Court directed that the case should proceed ex parte against the minors, Ram Kishen and Lachman. There is no formal order appointing Chunna Ram as the guardian for the suit of the minor defendants.4. On the 15th August, 19...
Musammat Siddiq-un-nisa Bibi Vs. Nizam UddIn Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1931
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.219
Sulaiman, Actg., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the maternal grandmother of Musammat Wajida Khatun from an order of the District Judge of Ghazipar directing that she should make over the child who was about seven years old to the respondent, her father. The mother of the girl died a few days after her birth at Sasaram which is the residence of the father, the maternal grandmother is residing in another District at Zamania. The girl was undoutedly allowed to be brought by the grandmother from Sasaram to Zamania and has for these years been maintained and brought up by the appellant. An application was made by the maternal grandmother that she should be appointed the guardian of her parson. Objections were filed by the father, the grand father as well as the paternal grandmother to the appointment of the maternal grandmother as her guardian and there was also a prayer that either of these persons be appointed a guardian of her person. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that i...
Ganpatji and anr. Vs. Hanuman Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All196
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for arrears of profits claimed against the deceased defendant, Hanutman Singh, who is now represented in this appeal by his sons.2. The claim was, according to the plaint, a rough estimate of the profits, the plaintiffs being usufructuary mortgagees, who were never before acquainted with the village. The plaintiffs clearly said in the plaint that if the profits were found to be larger than had been claimed in the plaint, they would pay additional court-fee for the sum found really due to the plaintiffs. The defence was that the Jambardar had made certain collections, and the plaintiffs should have only their share, which was 5 annas in the village. The Court of first instance granted a decree for Rs. 4,2iO with costs and interest.3. The defendant appealed, and the plaintiffs filed a cross-objection.4. The learned District Judge reduced the amount of the decree to the sum of Rs. 2,175-12-3.5. In this Court the plaintiffs have f...
Radha Ballab and anr. Vs. Deoki Nandan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All320; 140Ind.Cas.115
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal is the plaintiffs' and arises out of a suit filed by them for recovery of money by sale of certain property said to have been mortgaged on foot of a mortgage bond dated 29th December 1921 alleged to have been executed by the first three defendants to the suit. Defendant 4 was the son of one of the executants and defendant 5 was an attaching creditor of the other defendants.2. Two of the defendants, namely, defendant 3 and the attaching creditor defendant 5 alone contested the suit. They denied the execution of the bond and the payment of the consideration and defendant 3 further said that defendant 1 who was a friend of one of the plaintiffs had got the bond brought about for some motive unknown to the defendant.3. The plaintiffs adduced evidence by examining one of themselves and the scribe of the bond, but they did not examine any marginal witness. The Courts below came to the conclusion that the bond in suit was not proved as a mortgage bond because the pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›