Allahabad Court September 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.
Hari Kishan Das Vs. Guardian Assurance Company, Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All900; 147Ind.Cas.301
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal. Lala Hari Kishan Das, defendant-appellant, who is the proprietor of a firm carrying on business at Saharanpur made a proposal to the plaintiff, through one Mr. Jaura, asking for the insurance of his Steam Roller Flower Mills at Saharanpur for a sum of Rs. 7,71,000. Mr. Jaura carries on business as a broker. On the receipt of the defendant's application by the plaintiff (the Guardian Assurance Company) a risk note No. 3496 was issued and the defendant was immediately informed that the risk had been covered. Subsequently correspondence went on between the parties but eventually on 13th June 1927 the defendant declined to pay the premium and the plaintiff company wrote to him that as the premium had not been paid the contract was cancelled. The plaintiff's case was that the company had covered a risk for a period running from. 25th February 1927, to 13th June 1927, and therefore the defendant was liable for payment of the proportio...
V.S. Rm. Lingier Vs. Ramakrishnaier
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.623
Bardswell, J.1. The learned District Munsif has dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 73 of the Village Courts Act, for revision of a decree of the Village Munsif, Madura Town, with the words 'I see no reason to interfere. Dismissed.' The main allegation of the petitioner before the District Munsif appears to have been that he was tricked by the Village Munsif into signing an agreement as to on what material his cause should be tried. The matter was argued before the District Munsif by two Vakils, one on either side, and I must take it that the District Munsif held, after a full discussion, that the petitioner's contention was not made out. It has been remarked in Sundara Naicker v. Potti Naicker 98 Ind. Cas. 552 : 50 M. 494 : 24 L.W. 611 : 51 M.L.J. 561 : (1926) M.W.N. 953 : A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 192, that a District Munsif in exercising powers under Section 73 has a very wide discretion, and that in such a re-visional proceeding, when a District Munsif states that he has no...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›