Allahabad Court March 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.
Alamgir Footwear and Co. Vs. Secy. of State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All466
Mukerji, J.1. This is a revision against the decision of the Judge, Small Cause Court, at Agra, by which the applicant's suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council and the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway was dismissed with two sets of costs, one set to each of the defendants. The suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation without going into other questions which were concerned with the facts. The' learned Judge applied Article 31, Schedule 1, Limitation Act. Mr. Shambhu Prasad who argued the case very well for the applicant urged that when the goods arrived at Bangalore the plaintiff asked the Railway Administration to keep the goods till his further instructions as the consignee had refused to take delivery of the same. He urges that because the Railway Administration agreed to this course of action they ceased to be carriers and became bailees and therefore Article 31 did not apply to them. This is a fallacious argument and is based on a statement of law to be ...
Emperor Vs. Shib Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All620; 147Ind.Cas.809
King, J.1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against the acquittal of one Shib Lal, who was convicted by a Magistrate of the First Class under Section 326, Penal Code, but was acquitted on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. The facts of this case are practically undisputed. An extra amin named Karan Behari Lal went to the village of Nandgaon on 18th February 1932, for the purpose of collecting certain arrears of canal dues from Shib Lal and others. As he apprehended resistance, he took with him two constables, named, Pohap Singh and Manzur Ahmad, in addition to his peon, Kadir Bakhsh. On arrival at the village he was joined by Parshadi Lal, patwari, and Ajairam, the mukhia of the village and another man. In all there were seven persons of the amin's party including himself. When the party reached Shib Lal's house the amin sent for Shib Lal and. showed him. the warrant of attachment, and demanded payment of the arrears, due. Shib Lal refused to pay and also stated that he wou...
Ahmad Yar Khan Vs. Kheyali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All933; 147Ind.Cas.853
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of a decree and order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Budaun, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff had obtained an ex parte decree on 26th April 1932 and on 11th May the defendant made an application to set aside the ex parte' decree, filing at the same time a security bond. Of this bond it may be said that it was eventually accepted by the Court, but at the time when it was filed it had not been verified by the two sureties. On 19th May the Court directed that the bond should be verified, and fixed 23rd May for the next hearing. On the same date, 19th May, an endorsement on the security bond was made by the advocate for the defendant to the effect that the sureties were sufficient for the amount required. The bond was finally verified on 28th May, and Mr. S.P. Sinha, who has argued the case in favour of the applicant, points out that this date is two days beyond the period of limitation prescribed for making...
Puttu Singh and ors. Vs. Vidya Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All10; 153Ind.Cas.999
Mukerji, J.1. This application in revision must succeed. It appears that an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the applicants before us. Within a few days of the passing of the decree, the defendants made an application for the setting aside of the ex parte decree and for a re-hearing of the suit. Two points were taken by the plaintiffs: First the decree was not an ex parte one but was a contested decree, the defendant's counsel having been present on the occasion, and secondly, no good cause had been shown for setting aside the ex parte decree. The learned Subordinate Judge did not consider any of these two points raised. His order was passed on 12th July 1932 in the following language:Let the applicants pay Rs. 67-8-0 as costs of the day to the plaintiffs' pleader by 15th August 1932, when the suit will be restored, otherwise not.2. On 17th August the following order was passed:As the costs have been paid by the applicants, the case is restored to its original number and shall c...
Ajay Kumar Ghosh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All674
ORDERKisch, J.1. The applicant, Ajay Kumar Ghosh, has been ordered by a First Class Magistrate to execute a personal bond for Rs. 2,000 with two sureties each in the same amount to be of good behaviour for one year. On appeal the order of the Magistrate was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore. The case against the applicant was that he was a member of the revolutionary party and was so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community. The learned Sessions Judge has written a very careful judgment in disposing of the applicant's appeal. He has considered every point that could be considered in favour of the applicant and I do not find that there is any ground for interfering' with his order in revision.2. A.K. Ghosh was arrested in 1929 in connection with the Lahore conspiracy case, but he was acquitted in that case in the following year. It is however proved by the evidence that he was associating in Cawnpore with a numb...
Jafar HusaIn and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All859; 147Ind.Cas.551
ORDERKendall, J.1. The application made by the two applicants is that the proceedings instituted against them under Section 110, Criminal P.C., may be quashed. On 10th December 1932 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Khurja issued a notice to the two applicants in the following tems:Whereas report has been received from Sub-Inspector in charge, Police Station, Khurja, that you, Sayad Jafar Husain, son of Mr. Abbas, caste Saved, Mohalla Kot, and Lokman Das, son of Kishori Lal, Vaish, Mohalla Pirzadgan Khurja, are the owners of a flour mill run with electricity in which both of you are partners. There is general reputation that you in collusion with Mr. Charter, former Electric Engineer, habitually steal electric current and use such stolen current, whereby loss is sustained by the public; that you associate with Nathi Mal, &c.;, owners of other firm (flour mills) who have been convicted for theft of electricity, and with Abdul Rahman, a suspect and a thief. Whereas your remaining at liber...
irshadullah Khan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All528
Young, J.1. Irshad Ullah Khan, Mohammad Rashid Ullah Khan, Tufail Ahmad Khan, Nisar Khan, Fida and Kaley were tried in the Court below under Sections 302, 148 read with Section 149 and Section 307, Indian Penal Code. Fida and Kaley have been acquitted. The charge of rioting under Section 148, Indian Penal Code, failed. Irshad Ullah Khan has been found guilty under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to death. 'Rashid Ullah Khan, Tufail Ahmad and Nisar Khan have been held guilty under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to transportation for life. All these four accused have also been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and have been sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. They have all preferred appeals against their convictions, and the record of the case has been sent up by the learned Sessions Judge for confirmation of the death sentence passed against Irshad Ullah Khan.2. Irshad Ullah Khan and ...
Ramji and anr. Vs. Ramji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All844
Niamutullah, J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Allahabad, dismissing the appellants' application for execution of decree as barred by limitation. The appellant obtained on 31st March 1927 a simple money decree for Rs. 6,595-11-3 in suit No. 116 of 1926, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Benares. The application which has been dismissed by the lower Court was made on 7th November 1930 after a certificate of transfer had been obtained from the Court passing the decree. The application for certificate of transfer was made on 12th August 1930. If no subsequent application had been made for execution or some step-in-aid of execution being taken, there could be no doubt that his application dated 7th November 1930,, was barred by limitation being more than three years from the date of the Ramji. This appeal was heard by a. Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a member on 14th December 1932 It was represented that an application made by ...
JaIn Glass Works Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All854
ORDERSulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application in revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes dismissing a suit for damages against a railway company.2. Three consignments of grass were sent under risk note, form B. The rate for carrying grass at owner's risk is 3 annas, 6 pies per maund with a minimum of 160 maunds, whereas the rate for carrying the same at the company's risk is 3 annas 10 pies with a minimum of 160 maunds. The risk note that was granted to the consignor was on form B as the amount that was charged was Rs. 28-12-0 which was less than Rs. 35, which would be the rate for carrying the goods at the owner's risk. The clerk in filling up the columns put down the rate of 3 annas, 10 pies per maund but at the same time ignored the minimum quantity of 160 maunds, which was required for that rate. The net result was that he charged less from the consignor.3. The learned advocate for the applicant contends that because the rate mentioned in the column by the clerk was 3 an...
J.E. Da Fonseca and Co. Vs. Kumar Anand Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All392
1. This is a second appeal arising out of an action for breach of warranty. The plaintiff bought a Studebaker President Eight car from the defendants for Rs. 10,000. He bought it with a warranty that the car would do 75 miles an hour and that the petrol consumption was 15 miles to a gallon. The trial court decreed the suit and awarded to the plaintiff Rs. 3,000 as damages. The lower appellate court has confirmed the decree. A number of defences were raised by the defendants both before the trial court and the lower appellate court. We are satisfied that there is no substance in them. It is clear, in our view, from the evidence and correspondence to which we have been referred, and from the finding of the Judge in the lower appellate Court, that there has been a clear breach of warranty on the part of the defendants.2. The only question for our consideration is therefore the question of damages. Normally this is not a question which is considered in a second appeal. In this case, howeve...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »