Allahabad Court December 1933 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.
Charitter Shukul Vs. Lal Behari Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All433
Kendall, J.1. This is an application by the decree-holder for the revision of an order of the Munsif of Haveli Azamgarh in which he cancelled a previous order passed by him on 11th June 1932, sanctioning a settlement made by the decree-holder and his judgment-debtor. The order of the Munsif against which this application is made was passed in consequence of a decree in a regular suit dated 27th April 1933, declaring that the settlement arrived at between the decree-holder and judgment-debtor was null and void.2. The circumstances are as follows. The decree-bolder applicant had obtained a decree for money against a minor under the guardianship of his mother. Some property of the minor's was attached, but on several occasions an application was made for postponement of the sale. Finally however the property was sold on 20th May 1932, a final application for stay had been allowed by the District Judge, but his order reached the executing Court too late to have effect. On the following day...
Charitter Shukal Vs. Lal Behari Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1933
Reported in: 154Ind.Cas.106
Kendall, J.1. This is an application by the decree-holder for the revision of an order of the Munsif of Haveli Azamgarh in which he cancelled a previous order passed by him on June 11, 1932, sanctioning a settlement made by the decree-holder and his judgment-debtor. The order of the Munsif against which this application is made was passed in consequence of a decree in a regular suit dated April 27, 1933, declaring that the settlement arrived at between the decree-holder and judgment-debtor was null and void.2. The circumstances are as follows. The decree-holder applicant had obtained a decree for money against a minor under the guardianship of his mother. Some property of the minor's was attached, but on several occasions an application was made for postponement of the sale. Finally, however, the property was sold on May 20, 1932, a final application for stay had been allowed by the District Judge, but his order reached the executing Court too late to have effect. On the following day ...
Muhammad Sultan Vs. Clive Insurance Co., Ltd. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All298
Mukerji, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a contract of insurance alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 with the defendant No. 2 as the general manager of defendant No. 1. The facts briefly are these. The plaintiff was approached by one Mr. Dungal, a canvasser for the Insurance Company, to insure against burglary his (the plaintiff's) goods and furniture with the defendant No. 1. On 7th November 1928 a proposal form was filled in and signed by the plaintiff. It is not printed, because the respondents are not represented in this Court and they did not print any document or oral evidence produced by them in the Court below. When the plaintiff signed the proposal form he also paid a sum of Rs. 95, being the amount of premium. The insurance was to be in force for one year, and the sum of Rs. 95, was the entire premium for that year. On 22nd November 1928 the plaintiff received a document, which has been described as a 'cover note' an...
Sidheshwar Nath Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All351; 152Ind.Cas.174
King, J.1. This is an application in revision against the appellate order of the learned Sessions Judge of Agra, upholding the conviction of Sidheshwar Nath under Section 394, Penal Code. The case for the prosecution was that on 4th January 1933, at about 5 p.m., Rup Narain, who is a postal overseer, was taking a bag containing cash, amounting to over Rs. 4,000 in value, from the branch post office to the head office. When he had reached a gate of the Thomason Hospital he was assaulted by a man who seized the bag and hit Rup Narain over the head with some weapon and attempted to snatch away the bag. Rup Narain resisted vigorously and cried for help whereupon some bystanders came to his assistance and the robber ran away. He was chased, but managed to make good his escape by climbing over a wall and entered the Kalibari temple. Rup Narain made a report of the occurrence the same evening at 7 p.m. He stated that he did not know the name of his assailant, but he gave a description of him ...
(Mahanth) NaraIn Gir Vs. Ram Lakhan Gir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All368
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application for revision from an order, dated 6th June 1932, appointing a third arbitrator when the parties after due notice failed to agree to the appointment by the Court of any particular person. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this revision that it does not lie. Unfortunately there appears to be some apparent conflict of authority. There are several cases relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent, some of which are mentioned in Risal Singh v. Faqir Singh : AIR1932All452 , which would go to suggest that such a matter cannot be treated as a case decided. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the applicant has strongly relied on the case of Puran Lal v. Rup Chand : AIR1931All761 , which followed an earlier ruling in Jagannath Sahu v. Chhedi Sahu : AIR1929All144 . These cases would suggest that a revision would lie from an order, appointing an arbitrator. Had it been necessary for us to decide this point we would have been ...
Raghunath Ram and ors. Vs. Lachman Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All246
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit; has been dismissed by both the lower Courts. The plaintiffs in t.heir plaint set forth that the defendants were members of a joint Hindu family and that they borrowed a sum of money under the simple mortgage deed, dated 10th November 1924 from the plaintiffs, the mortgagors being Melhu Bai and Lachman Bai and the mortgagee being Kolaram. Subsequently on 10th June 1930 a sum of Rs. 1,000 was due from the defendants on account of the principal and interest under this mortgage-deed, and a sale deed was executed by the defendants on 10th June 1930 in favour of plaintiff No. 8, a member of the joint Hindu family of the plaintiffs. The sale deed was in lieu of the amount of Rs. 1,000. The sale deed purported to transfer 1.14 acres of zamindari property of the defendants. On the same date there was a deed of relinquishment executed by the defendants of their sir rights in the sir which appertained to the 1.14 acres of zamindar...
Budh Sen Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All329
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision by Budh Sen, a dealer in wheat flour carrying on business at Aligarh who has been convicted of an offence under Section 4, U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act (No. 6 of 1912). A sanitary inspector of the Municipal Board asked for a pice worth of 'pure wheat flour.' The accused supplied it without mentioning the fact that it might have a negligible percentage of barley flour. The sanitary inspector sent a quantity of the flour supplied to him for chemical examination. It was found by the chemical examiner that 'it was not pure but contained a small proportion of barely flour.' The report does not mention the proportion. It merely proves that it was not pure wheat flour, as impliedly represented by the accused. At the same time it is possible that it contained no more then 1 per cent of barley flour.2. The learned Counsel for the applicants has contended before me that, according to the evidence in the case and the rules framed b...
Bhagwan DIn Vs. Bagridi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All834; 152Ind.Cas.165
Kendall, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal from the order of the lower appellate Court setting aside the decree which had been given to him by the trial Court and directing the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The question before me therefore is one of jurisdiction only. The plaintiff-appellant sued on the ground that he had had permission to plant trees in a certain plot from the lambadar, that he had been dispossessed by the zataindars, and that he was entitled to a declaration that he was the owner of the trees and to an injunction against the respondents restraining them from obstructing his enjoyment of the trees that ho was entitled to final, possession if he was found to be out of possession. The question of jurisdiction was raised and the trial Court found that the suit would lie in the civil Court. The lower appellate Court went into the merits of the case, but finally decided that as the plaintiff-appellant was practically a grove-holder he had to s...
Budhsen Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.384
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision by Budh Sen, a dealer in wheat flour carrying on business at Aligarh who has been convicted of an offence under Section 4, U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act (No. VI of 1912) A Sanitary Inspector of the Municipal Board asked for a pice worth of 'pure wheat flour' The accused supplied it without mentioning the fact that it, might have a negligible precentage of barley flour. The Sanitary Inspector sent a quantity, of the flour supplied to him for chemical examination. It was found by the Chemical Examiner that 'it was not pure but contained a small proportion of barley flour,' The report does not mention the proportion. It merely proves that it was not pure, wheat flour, as impliedly represented by the accused. At the same time it is possible that it contained no more than 1 per cent, of barley flour.2. The learned Counsel for the applicant has contended before me that, according to the evidence in the case and the rules framed by t...
Kishan Swarup Vs. Mukandi Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All252
Kendall, J.1. This appeal is made by an auction-purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree, and it arises from the following circumstances: One Mukandi Lal had applied to be declared insolvent in. June 1929. Some of his property had been put up for sale in execution of a decree against him and on 19th July 1929 an application was made to the insolvency Court for stay of the sale proceedings and also for a direction to the Munsif of Agra to transfer the sale proceeds to the Court. The application for stay of sale was disallowed by the Judge of the insolvency Court. On 6th August 1929 the sale took, place and the property was purchased by the appellant. On 25th October 1929 Mukandi Lal was declared an insolvent, and on 23rd November 1929 the sale was confirmed and possession was subsequently given to the auction-purchaser. Several; months later, on 12th July 1930, Mukandi Lal made an application under Order 21, Rule 90 to set aside the sale on the ground of some irregularities in the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »