Allahabad Court October 1932 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.
Panna Lal-sham Lal Vs. Abdullah Usman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All117
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the firm Panna Lal Sham Lal and arises out of a certain insolvency proceedings. It appears that this firm brought a suit against the debtor to recover Rs. 1,200 odd or in the alternative 100 bags of grain. It also appears that these bags were attached before judgment. While the suit was pending an application was made by some creditors for the debtor to be adjudged an insolvent and a receiver was appointed who took actual charge of the 100 bags along with other properties of the debtor. The appellants obtained their decree on 14th March 1927 while the application for insolvency was pending, and as a result their claim for the recovery of the amount, and in lieu thereof of the 100 bags was decreed. This was followed by an order of adjudication with direction to the insolvent to apply for discharge within one year. The appellants Panna Lal and Sham Lal filed an application in the insolvency Court claming three alternative reliefs. They asked for the ...
Mr. J.W. Carol Vs. Mrs. J.W. Carol and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All39
ORDERYoung, J.1. The petitioner, Joseph William Carol, an Inspector employed by the B.N. Railway, filed a petition against his wife for dissolution of marriage. The respondent has objected that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the petition. This preliminary objection has been heard to-day.2. The facts are that Mr. Carol has official quarters provided for him by the railway company at Gondia, in the Central Provinces. He has a bungalow there, and in the same compound an office. The railway company furnishes the office, but Mr. Carol has furnished the bungalow allotted to him himself. His position as Inspector entails a good deal of travelling over the railway line, and therefore, in every month he is for several days away from Gondia. But when he is in Gondia he lives at the quarters assigned to him. In the month of April, shortly before the petition was filed in this case, Mr. Carol came to Allahabad. His last vist to Allahabad before April was in the year 1930. In view of the fa...
Kinder Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All160; 145Ind.Cas.880
Banerji, J.1. This is an appeal by three persons who have been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Cawnpore under Section 306, I.P.C., and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. In village Kudauli in the district of Cawnpore lived one Bhure Singh Thakur. He died on the night of 12th January 1932. The charge against the accused is that they abetted the suicide of the widow of Bhure Singh by helping her in immolating herself by burning on her husband's funeral pyre. The accused Kinder Singh was the head of the family and the two other appellants are the relations of the deceased. The facts are undoubted that the widow of Bhure Singh burnt herself on the funeral pyre of Bhure Singh at about 2 in the afternoon in village Kudauli. The evidence for the prosecution makes it abundantly clear. The only question is whether the appellants did anything or omitted to do anything by reason of which they could be convicted of the offence under Section 306, I.P.C.2. It is undoubtedly true that...
Mannu Naik and anr. Vs. Mathura Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All155
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order disallowing an application under Order 21, Rule 89, for the setting aside of a sale. It appears that in execution of a mortgage-decree 12 items of properties, mortgaged were sold on the same date, namely, 24th June 1931, in 12 separate lots and they fetched different prices, which were noted. The auction-purchasers also were different. On 21st July 1931 the mortgagees from the judgment-debtors of one of the items filed an application under Order 21, Rule 89 for the setting aside of the sale of the item which had been sold for Rs. 5,500. They deposited the sum of Rs. 5,500 plus the penalty of 5 per cent but did not deposit the whole of the decretal amount for which the properties had been put up for sale. The learned Subordinate Judge confirmed all the sales in September 1931. He disallowed the application of the mortgagees on the ground that it was not open to them to apply under that rule to have the sale set aside of some only of the l...
In Re: Abhey Ram Chunni Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All197; 145Ind.Cas.562
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application made by a firm, Messrs. Abhey Ram Chunni Lal, requesting this Court to ask the Income-tax Commissioner to state a case. The application came up for hearing on 24th June. 1932 and we directed a notice to go. Incompliance with that notice the learned Government Advocate has appeared to show cause against the granting of the application. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and as we are going to reject the application, it is not necessary to deliver a judgment in ex-tenso. Briefly, the learned Counsel for the assessee has raised four points. The facts involved are as follows: The assessee has his business at three places, namely, Benares, Jaunpur and Piparia in the Central Provinces. At Benares there are two shops, one is the head office, and the other is a branch office. On 1st April 1931 the Income-tax Officer of Benares called on the assessee to furnish a return by 4th May 1931. The assessee failed to furnish a return, and he asked fo...
Abhey Ram Chunni Lal, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1932
Reported in: [1933]1ITR126(All)
MUKERJI, J. - This is an application made by a firm, Messrs. Abhey Ram Chunni Lal requesting this Court to ask the Income-tax Commissioner to state a case. The application came up for hearing on June 24, 1932, and we directed a notice to go. In compliance with that notice the learned Government Advocate has appeared to show cause against the granting of the application.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and as we are going to reject the application, it is not necessary to deliver a judgment in extenso. Briefly, the learned counsel for the assessee has raised four points.The facts involved are as follows :-The assessee has his business at three places, namely, Benares, Jaunpur and Piparia in the Central Provinces. At Beneres there are two shops, one is the head office, and the other is a branch office. On April 1, 1931, the income-tax officer of Benares called on the assessee to furnish a return by May 4, 1931. The assessee failed to furnish a return, and he asked for ti...
Ch. Bachchan Lal Vs. Narottam Datt and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All59
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal from an order filing an award which was delivered in an arbitration proceeding without the intervention of the Court. On behalf of the respondents the first objection taken was that in view of the provisions of para. 21, Sub-section (2), no appeal would lie from a decree incorporating the award. This contention overlooks the express provision of Section 104(1)(f) which specifically provides an appeal from an order filling an award as distinct from a decree incorporating the award. There is accordingly no force whatsoever in this objection. The award is dated 11th March 1931, and the application for filing it was made on 7th May 1931. The award was therefore governed by the amended T.P. Act, 1929, and the amended Registration Act, 1929.2. Before the amendment, Section 17(6), Registration Act, 1908, made an exception in favour of any decree or order of a Court and any award. Accordingly an award even though it divided up immovable properties ...
Sukhdeoji and ors. Vs. Ram Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All108
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Khansi under Section 267, Agra Tenancy Act, (3 of 1926).2. It appears that the plaintiff Sukhdcoji sued in the Court of the Assistant Collector under Section 44 of the Act for the ejectment of the defendant, treating him as a trespasser. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that he was himself the proprietor and the plot was his khudkasht. An issue was framed as regards the alleged proprietary rights of the defendant and it was referred by the Assistant Collector to the Munsif for determination. The Munsif came to the conclusion that the defendant was not the proprietor and sent his finding to the Revenue Court. The Revenue Court, of course, accepted that finding but dismissed the suit on a different ground namely, that the plaintiff being only one of the cosharcrs was not entitled to maintain a suit for ejectment alone. An appeal was filed in the Court of the Commissioner by the plaintiff. Naturally as the finding a...
(Syed) Raza HusaIn Vs. District Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All104
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit brought by the District Board of Banda against the defendant who was at one time a member of the Board. In the plaint it was alleged that the defendant was a member of the Board from 1923 to 1925, and lime was required for use by the Board:Consequently an advance of Rs. 6,750 was given to the defendant for preparation of lime under the control and supervision of the defendant. The defendant was to supply the lime so prepared and render an, account of the advance.2. The Board went on to allege that he did not supply the full quantity of lime, and that he submitted an account which was wrong. It accordingly claimed the balance. It alleged that the cause of action accrued on or about the end of October 1925 when the defendant stopped supplying lime and also-on subsequent dates when he refused to render accounts. The suit was filed, on 26th October 1928. The defendant in his written statement pleaded that the suit was bad ...
Lala Manmohan Das Vs. Pt. Krishna Kant Malaviya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All41
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision from an order of the Subordinate Judge restoring suit which has been previously dismissed. A preliminary objection is taken that no case has been decided and that therefore no revision lies; if the contention of the applicant is correct, the suit had been finally disposed of, the Court had become a functus officio and a fresh proceeding was started by the plaintiff for the setting aside of the previous decree. This separate proceeding has now terminated in favour of the plaintiff and the original suit has been restored. In view of the pronouncement of two Full Benches of this Court in Ram Sarup v. Gaya Prasad : AIR1925All610 and Radha Mohan v. Abbas Ali : AIR1931All294 , it must be held that a case has been decided and that a revision would lie if the conditions required by Section 115, Civil P.C., are fulfilled. It appears that the suit had been pending for sometime and had been adjourned on several occasions. The last dat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »