Allahabad Court May 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.
M.G. Desai Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All504
Pullan, J.1. This is an application by M.G. Desai, who is at present undergoing his trial in Meerut in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, for exemption from attendance at the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge for ten days in order that he may see his mother in Bombay, who is ill. The application and the order passed thereon by the Additional Sessions Judge show that in this case the evidence is now completed and arguments have been addressed to the Court by the counsel representing the applicant. He therefore asks us to consider that his presence in Court is no longer essential. We may assume that the arguments in the case will not be completed in ten days' time and that, if we saw our way to grant this application, there would be no reason to fear that the applicant, who is on bail, would not return to the Court before judgment is pronounced. In his order the Additional Sessions Judge has pointed out that exemption can only be granted under Section 540-A, Criminal P.C., ...
Parsottamanand Giri Vs. Mayanand Giri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All593
King, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5, Court-fees Act. The plaintiff alleged that defendant 1 who was a Mahant of a mutt, had lost his title to Mahant ship owing to his marriage, illegal transfers of properties and other wrongful', acts, and that the plaintiff had been duly elected as Mahant in his place. The-plaintiff sued for possession as Mahanb of the properties attached to the mutt, including the properties which had been unlawfully transferred. The suit was-valued for the purposes of jurisdiction, at Rs. 2,30,242 and for the purposes of the court-fee at Rs. 1,59,842 on which a court-fee for Rs. 1,750 was paid. The plaintiff paid a further court-fee of Rs. 525 under a subsequent order of the Court. The suit was partially dismissed and the plaintiff appeals. He has valued his appeal at Rs. 1,59,842 and has paid a court-fee of Rs. 10 only. He contends that it was by mistake that an ad valorem court-fee had been paid in the trial Court and the proper court-fee would have bee...
Sher Pal Singh Vs. Mt. Aijaz Fatima and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All91
King, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for rent. The plaintiff originally was one Abdul Karim Khan and he claimed for himself and on behalf of 7 other persons the rent due from the defendant first set in respect of the 15 his was share belonging to the plaintiff and the persons he represented. Defendant 4, Sheo Baran Singh, was joined as pro forma defendant upon the allegation that he was lambardar and entitled under the terms of an agreement between the parties to collect the rent of the remaining 5 his was share. The suit was resisted on a great number of grounds which we need not set forth in detail for the purpose of this appeal. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the lower appellate Court has taken a different view and has decreed the major portion of the plaintiff's claim. To understand the facts in dispute, it is necessary to give a brief history of the property in suit. In 1915 a 15 his was share of the village was sold to Ghulam Mohiuddin Khan and Ra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›