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.
Mool Chand Vs. Ganga Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All522; 145Ind.Cas.804
Young, J.1. This is an application in revision from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Aligarh. The plaintiff brought a suit for salary, and notice was served on the defendant. On 20th April the case was fixed for hearing further evidence. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant appeared, and the suit was dismissed for default. On 27th June an application by the plaintiff was heard asking for restoration. Notice of that application was served on the defendant. On 27th June however the defendant did not appear. The application for restoration was allowed and 29th June was fixed for the hearing. Of this date the 29th June the defendant had no notice. The case was decided in favour of the plaintiff on 29th June, and the defendant applied on 12th August for restoration of the case. He filed an affidavit saying that he had no knowledge whatever of the case, until 5th August. The learned Judge however decided that as the defendant had knowledge of the original hearing- and of t...
Sarabjit Pratap Bahadur Sahi Vs. Inderjit Pratap Bahadur Sahi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All751a; 147Ind.Cas.874
Niamatullah, J.1. Tins is a judgment-debtor's appeal against an order dismissing his objections to the execution of a decree taken out by the decree-holder against him. Raja Inderjit Pratap Bahadur Sahi obtained a decree for arrears of revenue against Kuar Sarabjit Pratap Bahadur Sahi from the Revenue Court. He applied for execution of his decree. A five annas four pies share in village Turkawalia Sahebganj was attached. The judgment-debtor filed objections which have been thrown out by the Court below. The judgment-debtor has come up in appeal to this Court.2. The first objection taken by the judgment-debtor was that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree sought to be executed and therefore it was a nullity and incapable of execution. It may be stated here that this objection about the want of jurisdiction was unsuccessfully raised by the judgment-debtor in the suit in which the decree, which is now being executed, was passed. But there can be no doubt that it is ope...
Harakh NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Babban and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All473; 150Ind.Cas.262
1. The two Judges composing the Bench have arrived at different conclusions as regards the amount for which a decree should be passed in favour of the plaintiffs. The lower Court decreed the plaintiffs' claim in its entirety. One of us would decree it only to the extent of Rs. 2,275-4-0; while the other would uphold the lower Court's decree except as regards Rs. 340. The question is whether the decree appealed from should be varied so far as the Judges composing the Bench agree that it should be varied and the appeal dismissed as regards the rest, or whether the appeal should be dismissed in toto. Section 98, Civil P.C., is so worded as to make it arguable that, unless the majority of the Judges composing a Bench agree in varying or reversing the decree appealed from, it should be maintained. An opinion to this effect was expressed in Punjab Akhbarat & Press Co. Ltd., v. C.M.G. Ogilive AIR 1926 Lah 65. On the other hand, it was definitely held in Rajagopal Naidu v. Subbamal AIR 1928 Ma...
Harbans Dube Vs. Sita Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All576
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision directed against a decree of the Judge of Small Cause Court at Jaunpur. The applicant was defendant 1 in the suit, and was alleged to have executed the promissory note and the receipt on foot whereof the suit was brought. He denied the execution of the promissory note and the receipt, and pleaded want of consideration. Although the promissory note and the receipt purported to be for a cash advance of Rs. 50 made by the plaintiff to defendant 1, it was not disputed by the plaintiff that the money had not been advanced to defendant 1, but the latter executed the promissory note in discharge of the obligation of defendant 2 to pay that sum to the plaintiff, under a compromise in which the plaintiff agreed in consideration of Rs. 50 to withdraw his suit for demolition of a house constructed by defendant 2. A subsidiary question, raised by the plaintiff, related to the rate of interest, namely, 2 per cent per mensem, which was characteri...
Dwarka Das Vs. Kishan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All587; 147Ind.Cas.1048
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of about Rs. 12,000 with interest on the basis of a security bond dated 24th June 1922 executed by the deceased father of the minor defendant. The plaintiff's case is that on the death of the grandfather, Ganesh Das, during whose lifetime his son Gokul Das (the father of the defendant) had already separated, there was a dispute between the other two sons, Kishun Das and Ram Das, relating to the partition of the family property. A will was being set up, alleged to have been executed by Ganesh Das in favour of his widowed daughter and an idol. This suit ultimately resulted in a written compromise which was dated 24th June 1922, and was filed in Court on 26th June. Under this compromise, Kishun Das got the Moradabad Estate together with a sum of money of Rs. 13,500 which was payable by Ram Das. The last portion of this compromise, the interpretation of which is in dispute, referred to a security-bond to be ex...
Beni Prasad Vs. Phula Mal Madan Mohan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All591
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed in insolvency proceedings. The applicant, Beni Prasad, was adjudged insolvent on 29th November 1930. He was directed to apply for his discharge after the expiry of a year. He applied within that time for a protection order under Section 31, Provincial Insolvency Act, on 2nd May 1931, but his application was rejected.. After expiry of one year, on 27th November 1931, he applied for his discharge. This application was also not granted, but he was directed to apply for his discharge after the expiry of six months. Before the expiry of that period, one of the creditors, namely Shyam Lal, applied, on 20th February 1932, for his arrest and imprisonment in civil jail and the appellant was arrested and committed to prison. On the same date, that is, 20th February 1932, he applied for a protection order. The application was dismissed by the learned District Judge of Aligarh. The present appeal is from his order refusing to grant protectio...
Yashpal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All627; 147Ind.Cas.1193
Bennet, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad, in a case in which the jury by a majority of four to one acquitted one Yashpal of a charge under Section 19(f), Arms Act, and the learned Sessions Judge has recommended that the accused should be convicted as, in his opinion, the verdict of the majority of the jury is perverse. There is also before us an appeal by Yashpal of a conviction by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 307, Penal Code, and a sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The two proceedings relate to the same transaction and there was one trial in which the jury were assessors in the charge under Section 307, Penal Code. The evidence in the case consists mainly of the statement of Mr. Pilditch, the Superintendent of Police in the C.I.D. Branch stationed at Allahabad. He states that very early, on the morning of 23rd January 1932, he received information that Yashpal who was a proclaimed offender wanted in connection with various o...
Mutsaddi Lal Vs. Sultan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All743; 147Ind.Cas.813
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder, Mutsaddi Lal, from an order passed by the Court below on an application made under 5. 144, Civil P.C. The facts of the case are somewhat complicated and admittedly' there has been a tangle. Suit No. 30 of 1911 was first instituted on the basis of a mortgage-deed against the respondent, Sultan, who was then a minor, and a number of other defendants. An ex parte decree was obtained by the mortgagee which was put in execution and part of the mortgaged properties was sold at auction and purchased by the decree-holder himself. After this execution sale, Suit No. 211 of 1917 was filed by Sultan and three others for a declaration that the previous decree was not binding upon them inasmuch as they had not been properly represented. This litigation terminated in favour of Sultan, it being held that the previous decree was not binding upon him at all, but the previous decree was maintained as against his co-plaintiffs. The result therefore...
Secy. of State and anr. Vs. Firm Jhaddu Lal Hazari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All460
ORDERKisch, J.1. These applications are by the East Indian Railway and the Bengal North-Western Railway and are directed against two decrees of the Small Cause Court, Aligarh, awarding the plaintiff Rs. 14-4-0 and Rupees 35 compensation, respectively, for damages by wet to two consignments of raw sugar while in transport from Tamkohi Road station on the Bengal North-Western Railway to Aligarh on the East Indian Railway. The consignments were consigned under Risk Note H under the terms of which the consignor undertakes to hold the Railway Administration free from all responsibility for damages, to the goods consigned from any cause 'except upon proof that sach...damages arose from the misconduct of the Railway Administration's servants.' One consignment of 55 bags of raw sugar was booked by the plaintiff firm Jhaddu Lal Hazari Lal from Tamkohi Road to Aligarh on 18th September 1931. The other consignment of 110 bags was booked on 9th September 1931. They were apparently despatched in th...
Emperor Vs. Chaube Dinkar Rao and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All513
King, J.1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against the acquittal of Chaube Dinkar Rao, Pundit Jagat Narain and Pundit Madan Mohan who were charged with an offence under Section 161 read with 116, I.P.C. The principal facts of this case are undisputed. Mr. Brij Behari Lal was the Subordinate Judge of Etawah in the Mainpuri judgeship. We shall call him hereinafter 'the Judge.' There was a suit in his Court between Narain Rao, the father of Dinkar Rao, accused, and a man named Gur Narain. The Judge had recorded all the evidence and heard the arguments and was preparing his judgment when Pundit Jagat Narain accused came to his house, on 4th July 1931, and told him that the plaintiff Narain Rao would be prepared to give him Rs. 10,000 if he would decree the suit. The Judge felt insulted and turned Jagat Narain out of the house. The same evening the Judge met the Collector, Mr. Barlow, and told him about the suggested bribe of Rupees 10,000. Next day Mr. Mathur, the Sessions Judge ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »