Allahabad Court April 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.
Parmarath Gir Vs. Krishna Dayal Gir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All517; 145Ind.Cas.607
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Benares, cancelling a previous order of his own by which he had dismissed the plaintiff's suit for his non-appearance in person. The applicant before us is one of the defendants in a mortgage suit brought by the mortgagee for sale of the mortgaged property on foot of a mortgage executed by defendants first set. Defendants second set are subsequent transferees. Defendants third set are certain persons who claim interest in the mortgaged property alleged by them to be waqf. The suit was fixed for some miscellaneous proceedings to be taken on 22nd November 1932. The Court directed on that date that the parties should admit and deny each other's documents on 6th December 1932. The order does not expressly state that the admission and denial of documents should be made by the parties themselves. On 6th December 1932, the Court recorded a definite order that the parties should ...
Emperor Vs. Sheo Dayal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All535; 147Ind.Cas.15
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against the acquittal of certain persons by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore. Originally there were 41 persons prosecuted by the police on charges of riot, murder, dacoity and arson, the crimes being dated 25th March 1931, and of the 41 persons prosecuted, 24 were committed to the Sessions, and the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the 24 persons. The Local Government filed an appeal against the acquittal of 9 persons, and of those 9 persons, 3 persons subsequently absconded. We therefore have the following six persons before us as respondents: (2) Sheo Swarup, (4) Chhote, (5) Ram Narain, (7) Gobardhan, (8) Manohar Singh and (9) Puttu Singh Kayastha. 2. The charge is that during the Cawnpore riots of March 1931, there was a riot with murder dacoity and arson committed in the Bengali Mahal, a mahal of Cawnpore city where the majority of inhabitants are Hindus and there are a certain number of houses inhabited by Mohamedans....
In Re: Pallu Mall Bhola Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All541
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a reference-under Section 66(3) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Commissioner was required by an order of a Bench of this Court dated 20th July 1931, to state a case in relation to three questions therein formulated. The case has since been stated. The only facts which it is necessary to state for the purpose of the reference before us are these:2. The assessee, Sita Ram, was required by the Income-tax Officer to furnish a return, which he did. Subsequently the Income-tax Officer issued, what purports to be, a notice under Section 22(4), Income-tax Act, calling upon Sita Ram to produce his account books for the years 1983 to 1985 Sambat. Sita Ram produced his account books for the years 1984 and 1985 but not those for 1983. On being questioned by the Income-tax Officer on a later date as regards the circumstances in which he failed to produce the accounts for the year 1983 Sambat, he explained that the same had been filed in the Court of the Munsif, Benar...
In Re: Union Indian Sugar Mills Co., Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All607
Young, J.1. The liquidator of the Union Indian Sugar Mills Co., Ltd. (in liquidation) has at his disposal a surplus after paying all the creditors of the company. It therefore became his duty to divide this pro rata among the share-holders. He naturally proposed to divide this money among, those share-holders whose names appear upon the register of share-holders. The five applicants before me today however are not registered shareholders. They claim to hold the shares of one Lala Debi Datt, as security for loans advanced to him. As security for those loans they took the share certificates and blank transfers. These transactions took place sometime before the company went into liquidation. The mortgagees of the shares never took any steps to notify the company officially or to have their names registered as share-holders. They claim however that as Lala Debi Datt, was the Managing Director of the company and as he himself personally pledged these shares to them, the company must therefo...
Pallu Mall Bhola Nath, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1933
Reported in: [1933]1ITR235(All)
NIAMATULLAH, J. - This is a reference under s. 66(3) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Commissioner was required by an order of a Bench of this Court, dated 20th July, 1931, to state a case in relation to three questions therein formulated. The case has since been stated. The only facts which it is necessary to state for the purpose of the reference before us are these :-The assessee, Sita Ram, was required by the Income-tax Officer to furnish a return, which he did. Subsequently the Income-tax Officer issued, what purports to be a notice under Section 22(4), Income-tax Act, calling upon Sita Ram to produce his account books for the years 1983 to 1985 Sambat. Sita Ram produced his account books for the years 1984 and 1985 but not those for 1983. On being questioned by the Income-tax Officer on a later date as regards the circumstances in which he failed to produce the accounts for the year 1983 Sambat, he explained that the same had been field in the Court of the Munsif, Benares. T...
Sri Krishna Chandra Vs. Mahabir Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All488
Sulaiman, C.J.1. The following question has been referred to the Full. Bench for an answer: 'Whether the court-fee of Rs. 10 paid by the plaintiff on the plaint as filed by him was sufficient, and it not, what would be the proper court-fee payable.'2. The plaintiff in this case was a minor suing through a guardian and his case was that in a previous suit brought for the partition of a joint Hindu family property he was not effectively represented by his guardian who was very negligent and careless and did not properly look after his case. The suit was referred to arbitration which resulted in an award which was incorporated in the decree of the Court, The plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs specifically: (a) It may be held that Govind Prasad, defendant 3rd party, did not in any way look after the rights of the plaintiff during the pendency of suit No. 65 of 1927, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ghazipur, and that he was guilty of gross negligence on account of which the p...
Rudra Dat Bhatt Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All543
ORDER1. This is an application in revision on behalf of one Pandit Rudra Datt Bhatt, who has been convicted under Section 168, Penal Code, read with Section 34, District Boards Act, and sentenced to four months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 or three months' simple imprisonment in default of payment. The charge framed against the accused was that being a member of the District Board of Almora from November 1928 of November 1930 he carried on during this period the business of supplying coir matting to the said District Board in the name of Gangaram Kishorimohan thus engaging in trade without the permission of the Commissioner contrary to Section 34(1), District Boards Act, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 168, Penal Code. The conviction and sentence of the Magistrate was upheld on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. The finding of the Sessions Court is that there was:a carefully worked out scheme to get something like a 100 per cent profit from ...
Sahu Durga Saran Vs. Beni Pershad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All559
Niamatullah, J.1. This purports to be an appeal from an order under Section 47, Civil P.C. The appellant was appointed by the insolvency Court as a receiver of the estate of one Mt. Chaman Devi. Messrs. Bhagwan Das and Co., had a simple money decree against Mt. Chaman Devi. Certain zamindari property was attached in execution of that decree. An application for Mt. Chaman Devi being adjudged as insolvent was made by one of the creditors. The petition was admitted on 18th July 1928. It is allowed by the official receiver, the appellant before us, that Mr. Moti Ram, was appointed an interim receiver on 19th July 1928 under Section 20, Provincial Insolvency Act. This is however in controversy and we shall advert to this question later on. It is not disputed that Moti Ram informed the Court executing the decree-of Messrs. Bhagwan Das and Co., that he had been appointed a receiver and that the Court executing the decree should deliver to him the zamindari. property which had been attached in...
Emperor Vs. Ragho Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All525; 145Ind.Cas.749
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against the acquittal of Ragho Ram, respondent, of charges of falsification of accounts under Section 477-A, Penal Code.2. Ragho Ram was the goods clerk in charge of the goods office at Jaunpur, E.I. Ry., station. He misappropriated various sums of money that were paid by consignees of goods on account of the freight of consignments. He was accordingly prosecuted under Section 409, Penal Code, for having committed criminal breach of trust with respect to three items and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted him and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to a fine of Rs. 500. The conviction and sentence were on appeal upheld by the learned Sessions judge. Ragho Ram filed an application in revision in this Court against the appellate order of the learned Sessions Judge and we have today dismissed that application.3. Ragho Ram was separately tried under Section 477-A, Penal Code, for having fraudulen...
Lachhi Ram and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All554
Bajpai, J.1. This case was referred to a Bench of two Judges by a Single Judge. The referring order, which states the facts of the case, may be read. There is a slight error in the referring order. It is stated therein that:the warrant which was issued by the Superintendent of Police on the basis of credible information...was directed not to a sub-inspector or officer not below....2. The passage should read as follows:The warrant which was issued by the Superintendent of Police on the basis of credible information...was directed not to an inspector or officer not below....3. Paragraph 333 in Ch. 26 of the U.P. Police Regulations, enjoins that the warrant issued under Section 5, Public Gambling Act, 1867, should be directed to an Inspector or officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector in charge of a police station.4. The only question that we have got to decide is whether the three slips of paper found in the house raided are instruments of gaming within the definition of those words...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »