Allahabad Court April 1932 Judgments
S. Rashid Ahmad Vs. Mt. Anis Fatima and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All3
Sulaiman, C.J.1. On an oral application made by Dr. Faruqi notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why Rs. 440 out of Rs. 4,000 lying in deposit as security in this Court should not be paid over to Dr. Faruqi towards the payments of fees due to him. It appears that Dr. Faruqi along with another counsel filed an application for leave to appeal to their Lordships of the Privy Council, though he had not appeared in the first appeal itself. The appeal was admitted and was sent to the office of the Privy Council. Dr. Faruqi appears to have looked after the interests of the appellant and instructed the Solicitors in England. According to him the bulk of Rs. 440 is the aggregate amount of the fees due to him for various works done. The appellant succeeded and the amount of security deposited by him for the cost of the respondents is now available to him for being returned.2. The question is whether Dr. Faruqi is entitled to claim a lien for the outstanding fees on this amount. It was...
Tag this Judgment!Secy. of State Vs. Kesho Prasad Sheo Prasad Belanganj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All584
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision, from a decree of the Court of Small Causes, and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for damages for shortage in the goods consigned by him. There is no controversy about the facts. On 30th September 1929, 160 bags of sugar weighing about 420 maunds were despatched under risk note forms A and B from Kantapokar to Agra City. The usual time taken for the goods to arrive from Kantapokar to Agra City if transmitted across the ordinary route is five or six days. The wagon containing the goods was taken on the ordinary route up to Tundla, but, owing to a mistake, instead of being sent from there to Agra City it was sent to Aligarh. The wagon remained at Aligarh for some time and then the goods were unloaded and were ultimately despatched to Agra on 31st October 1929, where delivery under protest was taken by the plaintiff. The consignment, when delivered to the plaintiff, was about 30 maunds short in weight and the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Yakub Ali Vs. Tajammul HusaIn Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All653
ORDERIqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision against the order of the learned Small Cause Court Judge of Farrukhabad directing the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in the revenue Court. The suit out of which this application arises was brought by the plaintiff for recovery of his share of the price of the fruits of two groves> one being situate in patti 33 of village Amethi Jadid and the other in patti 10 of village Nibalpur. The fruits of the two groves were admittedly sold by the defendants and the price of the same was realized by them. The suit was contested on a variety of grounds and the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes recorded findings on many of those points, but as the order sought to be revised before me was based on his finding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, I need not notice the other points raised in defence or the findings of the learned Judge on those points. In order to appreciate the question...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Har Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All673
1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Mainpuri recommending that a conviction and sentence passed by a Magistrate under Section 307, U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, be set aside. The facts are that there was a certain plot 2357 situated within the limits of the Mainpuri Municipality.2. In this plot there is a nallah through which the drainage of that locality passes. The accused Har Prasad alias Lallu is alleged to have started making a certain construction which encroached upon the nallah, partly blocking it up and interfering with the drainage. The Municipal Board issued a notice to him under Section 186, Municipalities Act, which was served upon him on 30th October 1928, requiring him to stop immediately the construction which he was making without permission. The accused did not comply with this notice which admittedly was served upon him.3. On 21st June 1929, a second notice was served upon him by the Municipal Board under Section 211 ordering him to remove the co...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar and anr. Vs. Jainti Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All703
1. This is an application in revision by the defendants arising out of a suit under Section 9, Specific Relief Act. The defendants in execution of their mortgage decree purchased a house at auction and applied for delivery of possession. On 23rd February 1930 the Amin delivered possession to the defendants. The present plaintiffs filed objections under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P.C., but their objections were ultimately dismissed. Instead of bringing a regular suit they filed a suit under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, alleging that they had been wrongly dispossessed. The learned Munsif has gone into the question of fact and has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were in possession of the house and were wrongly dispossessed within six months of the suit. He has accordingly restored possession to them. The defendants have come up in revision and urged that no suit lay under Section 9, Specific Relief Act. It seems to us that the contention of the defendants must be accepted. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhnandan Singh Vs. Mt. Ramdeyi Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All601
Pullan, J.1. The appellant is a decree-holder who obtained a final decree in a mortgage suit on 5th March 1926. He applied for execution of the decree on 21st March 1929 and his application has been dismissed as being barred by time. In appeal the decree-holder asks us to consider that his application should be held to be within time because after the final decree was passed ex parte an application was made by the judgment-debtor for setting aside the ex parte decree, and this application was not rejected till 30th March 1926, by an order which was affirmed on appeal on 14th May 1926. It is suggested that the application for execution may be made within three years of the date of the dismissal of the application for setting aside the final decree in appeal. Article 182, Lim. Act, gives the period of three years for an application for the execution of a decree from : (1) the date of the decree or order; (2) where there has been appeal, the date of the final decree or order of the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Katwaroo Rai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All680; 139Ind.Cas.141
Young, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Basti. The applicants were bound over under Section 107, Criminal P.C., to keep the peace and were ordered to find security. They appealed to the Sessions Court. An order was passed on their application that security was not to be taken from them until the hearing of the appeal. Against that order the Government pleader made an application contending that such an order was ultra vires and could not be passed by the Sessions Court and also that no bail could be granted. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the objection of the Government pleader was sound and set aside the order. Against this order of the Additional Sessions Judge the applicants have come here in revision. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relied upon the provisions of Section 426(1), Criminal P.C. which enacts as follows:(1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the appellate Court may, far rea...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Sohni Vs. Raj Kumar Singh JaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All678
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by one of the defendants in a suit for partition of two houses in the city of Benares. They were purchased in the names of Mt. Chunia and Mt. Sohni, the wives of Parshotam and Harkishen respectively. It is immaterial to determine whether the houses really belonged to the husbands or the wives as all the four were impleaded as defendants and set up a common defence. The plaintiff-respondent purchased the half-share standing in the name of Mt. Chunia in execution of a simple money decree against her, and subsequently instituted the suit for partition which has given rise to this appeal. The defence was founded on Section 4, Partition Act. It was pleaded that the two houses which adjoin each other are dwelling houses belonging to the undivided family consisting of Parshotam Das and Harkishun and their wives, and that the plaintiff respondent is entitled to no more than the value of the half-share which the defendants undertake to purchase. Both the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Jai Dayal Madan Gopal of Benares
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All77
Sulaiman, C.J.1. The question referred to the High Court by the Commissioner is in the following words:Whether having regard to the deed of partnership, dated 16th April 192S, and to other relevant evidence on the record, the finding that the registered firm Jai Dayal Madan Gopal of Benares is in its corporate capacity a partner in nine other firms bearing the same name was a legal and proper finding 2. It is obvious that the Commissioner has assumed that a registered firm can under the law be a partner in another firm in its corporate capacity, and he has asked to answer the question whether having regard to the deed of the partnership and to other relevant evidence on the record, the firm Jai Dayal Madan Gopal of Benares is a partner' in the other firms. Strictly speaking the question of law that one firm cannot' legally be a partner in another firm in its corporate capacity has not been referred to us. This would be clear if we see the. grounds in the petition of the assessee for re...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Asghar and ors. Vs. Mt. Abida Begum and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All177
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from a judgment of this Court passed in a first appeal from order, reversing the judgment of the lower appellate. Court and restoring that of the Court of first instance. The suit related to the partition of house properties, the plaintiffs' share in which was valued at less than Rs. 10,000. It is conceded by the application before us that the value of the subject-matter in dispute, viz., the share of the plaintiffs in the disputed house is less than Rs. 10,000. On the other hand it is not disputed by the respondents that the value of the entire house which is sought to be partitioned is more than Rs. 10,000. The parties had agreed to abide by the statement of a referee and this High Court considered that the proceedings were not in the nature of an arbitration but amounted to a compromise, and ordered that a decree should be prepared in terms of the statement made by the referee. The question raised in appeal is w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »