Allahabad Court February 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.
Mahabir Pershad and anr. Vs. Chitto Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All372
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. On 5th July 1927 Chittoo Lal sold his sir rights to Madari with the result that he became ex-proprietary tenant of the plots. He tranferred his entire proprietary interest and ceased to be a co-sharer. Subsequently on 30th May 1928 apparently on getting notice of the claim of pre-emption, Madari sold the property back to Chittoo Lal. The suit for preemption was instituted on 4th July 1928, i.e., within one year of the original sale deed. In the plaint the plaintiffs mentioned the dates of both the documents and also stated that the cause of action arose on both the dates and they wanted a decree for pre-emption as against both the defendants. The claim was decreed by the first Court but the lower appellate Court has dismissed the suit holding that there has been a transfer to an ex-proprietary tenant within the meaning of Section 9, Agra Pre-emption Act and the suit is not maintainable.2. There is no dou...
In Re: L.C. De Souza
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All374
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act, by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax under the following circumstances:The assessee, Mr. L.C. De Souna, is a resident of Cawnpore. On 29th May 1030 the Income-tax Officer of Cawnpore issued, by means of registered post, acknowledgment due, a notice under Section 22(2) requiring him to submit by 2nd July or within 30 days of the service of the notice, a return of the income for the assessment year 1930-31. This notice was not complied with, although it was delivered by the postal peon to the assessee's son, Mr. J. de Souza. There was another notice issued under Section 22, Clause (4), Income-tax Act, and it was served on another son of Mr. DeSouza. At one time there was a controversy about the validity of this notice, but the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax having held that this service was not good, we are not called upon to express any opinion on that point.2. As no compliance had been made of the notice ...
Gopal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All507; 137Ind.Cas.208a
Boys, J.1. The accused was tried summarily by an Honorary Magistrate on a charge under Section 379, I.P.C., and the Magistrate having only Third Class powers thought that the sentence he could give was not sufficient, and referred the ease under Section 349, Criminal P.C., to the District Magistrate, who without taking any further evidence or hearing the case anew in any way at all, sentenced the accused to a year's rigorous imprisonment. It is urged, and rightly urged that this is in conflict with Section 262(2), Criminal P.C. The trial was originally a summary trial, and its nature could not be altered by the mere fact of a reference under Section 349. The case might be otherwise if the District Magistrate had really heard the case de novo at full length in accordance with the regular procedure. But that is not the case here. I reduce the sentence to one of three months' rigorous imprisonment. The applicant will surrender to his bail. I am told that there is only a fortnight of the s...
In Re: L.C. Desouza
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1932
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.70
1. This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax under the following circumstances.2. The assessee Mr. L. C. DeSouza is a resident of Cawnpore. On 29th May, 1930, the Income Tax Officer of Gawnpore, issued, by means of registered post, acknowledgment due a notice under Section 22(2) requiring him to submit by July 2 or within 30 days of the service of the notice, a return of the income for the assessment year 1930-1931 This notice was not complied with, although it was delivered by the postal peon to the assessee's son, Mr. J. DeSouza. There was another notice issued under Section 22, Clause (4) of the Income Tax Act, and it was served on another son of Mr. DeSouza. At one time there was a controversy about the validity of this notice, but the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax having held that this service was not good we are not called upon to express any opinion on that point.3. As no compliance had been made of the notices...
Mahabir Pershad and anr. Vs. Chittoo Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1932
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.272
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. On the 5th of July 1927, Chittu Lal sold his sir rights to Madari with the result that he became an ex-proprietary tenant of the plots. He transferred his entire proprietary interest and ceased to be a co-sharer. Subsequently on the 30th of May 1928, apparently on getting notice of the claim of pre emption, Madari sold the property back to Chittu Lal. The suit for pre-emption was instituted on the 4th of July 1928 i.e., within one year of the original sale deed. In the plaint the plaintiffs mentioned the dates of both the documents and also stated that the cause of action arose on both the dates and they wanted a decree for pre emption as against both the defendants. The claim was decreed by the first Court but the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit holding that there has been a transfer to an ex-proprietary tenant within the of Section 9 of the Agra Pre-emption and the suit is not maintainable.2. There is...
L. Bishambhar Nath Vs. the Agra Electric Store Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All342; 140Ind.Cas.502
King, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit by a liquidator of a private limited liability company for recovery of money for certain calls on shares which were not fully paid up.2. The Agra Electric Stores Ltd., was a private limited liability company and the defendant was a signatory to the Memorandum of Association and he was a subscriber of one share of Rs. 2,000. On 10th November 1924 he paid a sum of Rs. 500. The balance of Rs. 1,500 he was called on to pay on allotment and on two calls made by the company; that is by 2nd March 1925, Rs. 1,500 ought to have been paid by the defendant-appellant on his share.3. On 22nd March 1926 the directors of the company forfeited the appellant's share. Eventually, on 9th May 1928, Parshotam Das Agarwal was appointed a 'voluntary liquidator of the company by a resolution of the company and on 3rd November 1928 certain powers are alleged to have been given to the liquidator. The defendant not having paid the money due, the liquidator instit...
Jathali Bhul Vs. Nadia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All415
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision from an order of the District Judge of Kumaun. A suit was filed by the plaintiff in the Court of the Small Cause Court Judge, who had the jurisdiction of an Additional Assistant Collector in revenue cases also. The suit was for possession of a house and a court yard attached thereto standing on a plot of land which was alleged to be the plaintiff's holding. The plaintiff suggested that five years before the suit 'he was in joint possession with the defendant, but when a separation took place the defendant did not give him possession of the same. The defendant's case was that the house had been built by his ancestors and had been in the possession of his family for generations.2. On the pleadings the first Court framed an issue whether the suit was cognizable by the civil Court or not. It came to the conclusion that it was cognizable by the civil Court, and recorded a finding to that effect. The Court imagined that the finding...
Amika Prasad and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All506
Boys, J.1. I was responsible myself for the admission of this reference for hearing as I thought the case required looking into. The applicants have been convicted under Section 187, I.P.C., and released under Section 562, Criminal P.C., after a warning. Two of the men are a patwari and a mukhia respectively, and the conviction is naturally of some importance to them as they are likely to lose their positions. The case has therefore required some thought, for it arises also under unusual circumstances. Two constables and two chaukidars went to arrest a man in a riot case. The man was working in his fields. He was arrested in the ordinary sense of the term, and there is no reason for applying any other, by securing his hands with a agree, for the policemen had no handcuffs. On being thus arrested he lay down on the ground and refused to move. Now, the findings of fast are that the evidence of the two constables if believed is that they asked the assistance of the accused persons who not...
Ambika Prasad and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1932
Reported in: 139Ind.Cas.106
ORDERBoys, J.1. I was responsible myself for the admission of this reference for hearing as I thought the case required looking into. The applicants have been convicted under Section 187 of the Indian Penal Code, and released under Section 562 of the Code of Criminal, Procedure after a warning. Two of the men are a patwari and a mukhia respectively, and the conviction is naturally of some importance to them as they are likely to lose their positions. The case has, therefore, required some thought, for it arises also under unusual circumstances. Two constables and two chaukidars went to arrest a man in a riot case. The man was working in his fields. He was arrested in the ordinary sense of the term, and there is no reason for applying any other, by securing his hands with a pagree, for the Policemen had no handcuffe. On being thus arrested he lay down on the ground and refused to move. Now, the findings of fact are that the evidence of the two constables is believed that they asked the ...
Dhonkal Singh and anr. Vs. Harbans Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All280
Banerji, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal in a suit for recovery of money. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rupees 5,445-12-0 as due to him on two promissory notes, namely, of 18th November 1918 and 13th July 1919, and a bond of 11th February 1919. The plaintiff also claims a sum of Rupees 525 which he had lent under a promissory note of 29th October 1924. The moneys due on the promissory notes and bonds were time barred, but a certain amount of interest had been paid, and by Ex. 6 the defendants, had acknowledged the debts. As the promissory note was not stamped according to law it was not used and could not be produced in proof of the loan of Rs. 525. The defence was that Ex. 6 was a false document and that the defendants had never paid interest as alleged by the plaintiff and had paid up the bond of 11th February 1919 in full. They denied execution of the promissory notes of 18th November 1918 and of 13th July 1919. The learned Subordinate Judge did not believe the evidence of the de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »