Allahabad Court October 1934 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.
Bachan Lal Vs. Amar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All125
Bennet, J.1. This is an execution second appeal on behalf of one Bachan Lal against orders in execution of the two lower Courts dismissing his application to set aside arbitration proceedings. There was a decree obtained by Chheda Lal against Amar Singh, etc. Seven persons applied to put this decree into execution as legal representatives of Chheda Lal deceased and proceedings in execution began. The judgment-debtors of that decree objected and on 29th November 1932, both parties made an agreement that the objection should be referred to arbitration. The 10th January 1933 was fixed for filing the award and the award was filed on that date, and 23rd January, was fixed for orders. Meanwhile on 3rd January 1933, Bachan Lal, the present appellant, filed a suit on the promissory note against the legal representatives of Chheda Lal deceased naming the same seven persons and one other. On 7th January 1933, Bachan Lal made an application for attachment before judgment of the decree of Chheda L...
Jiwa Lal Evide Vs. Kharagjit Singh Misra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All126; 157Ind.Cas.677
Bennet, J.1. This is an execution first appeal by a judgment-debtor under the following circumstances:The appellant as plaintiff had brought an election suit against defendant 1, Rai Bahadur Kharagjit Singh Misra and defendant 2, the District Board of Mainpuri. In appeal this Court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff with costs to the respondents-defendants. Defendant 1 applied for execution of the entire decree for costs of this Court. Objection was taken by the plaintiff that the decree for costs was a joint decree and not intended for defendant 1 alone. The lower Court dismissed this objection on 1st April 1930. Subsequently a warrant was issued in execution and the whole costs were paid into the lower Court and an inquiry was made by the lower Court from the District Board, defendant 2, as to whether anything had been spent in the High Court as costs of the case and the District Board replied that nothing had been spent by them. On this assurance the lower Court passed an order o...
Sewa Ram and ors. Vs. Giyan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All180; 153Ind.Cas.465
1. This is a defendants' appeal in which the only question is whether the suit had abated against two defendants, Kabul Singh and Munshi Lal or not. Admittedly these defendants died in March 1929 and the lower appellate Court has found that there cannot be the least doubt that, at least by April 1931, the plaintiff was aware of their deaths because a notice of a suit brought by the heirs against him was served on him on that date. Lie took no steps to bring the heirs of the deceased on the record within 90 days of the knowledge of their deaths but waited and long afterwards applied for the preparation of a final decree against their heirs. Objection was at once taken by the latter that the suit had abated as against Munshi Lal and Kabul Singh and no final decree should be prepared. The Court below has overruled this objection on the ground that Rule 12, Order 22, Civil P.C., was amended on 14th February 1931 under which there would no longer be an abatement once a preliminary decree fo...
Beni Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All214
ORDERBajpai, J.1. This case was heard by me on 6th August 1934, when I directed that, the amin of the Civil Court should be examined and his evidence tested carefully by the execution record of case No. 67 of 1933, of the Court of the Judge, Small Causes at Pilibhit. The amin was examined and cross-examined and his evidence has been certified to this Court, along with a note by the Judge. The facts of the case might be stated briefly once more. On 24th March 1933, the amin of the Civil Court went to attach certain crops belonging to Bhaggi in execution of a decree obtained by Jagmohan Lal. It is said that the crops were attached and entrusted to a custodian. Some days afterwards, that is, on 2nd April 1933, Beni, the applicant before me, removed the crops in spite of a remonstrance by the sapurdar. Upon these facts Beni was convicted of an offence under Section 379, Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50.2. The contention of the applicant before me as well as before the Cour...
Sukhdeo Behari Lal Vs. (Firm) Rama Nand Dwarka Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All268
Bennet, J.1. This is an execution second appeal by a surety against whom the two lower Courts have given concurring decisions. The facts are that there was a decree obtained in suit No. 679 of 1928 by a certain firm against the Pioneer Mills, Bombay. There was an application for restoration and the Court required that sufficient security should be given by defendant for restoration of the suit. The appellant was counsel for the defendant and he gave a surety bond to the extent of Rs. 999-8-0. This bond very clearly states that he stood surety to the extent of Rs. 999-8-0. Learned Counsel for the respondent desires to interpret that bond to mean that although the sum is mentioned, the surety undertook liability to the whole extent of the decree. I do not consider that the bond can be interpreted in that sense and to interpret it in that sense would in my opinion make it contradictory in its terms. The matter proceeded further and on a certain date the surety applied to the Court for per...
Beni Vs. Emperor Through Yasin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1934
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.428
Bajpai, J.1. This case was heard by me on August 6, 1934, when I directed that the amin of the Civil Court should be examined and his evidence tested carefully by the execution record of case No. 67 of 1933 of the Court of Judge, Small Causes, at Pilibhit. The amin was examined and cross-examined and his evidence has been certified to this Court along with a note by the Judge.2. The facts of the case might be staled briefly once more. On March 24, 1933, the amin of the Civil Court went to attach certain crops belonging to Bhaggi in execution of a decree obtained by Jagmohan Lai. It is said that the crops were attached and entrusted to custodian. Some days afterwards, that is, on April 2, 1933, Beni, the applicant before me, removed the crops in spite of a remonstrance by the sapurdar. Upon theses facts Beni was convicted) of an offence under Section 329, Indian Penal Cede, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50.3. The contention of the applicant before me as well as before the Courts be...
(Syed) Ibne Ali Vs. (Sahu) Dharam Kirti Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All182; 153Ind.Cas.410
1. This is a first appeal from order by a judgment-debtor. The appellant made objections against a sale of his property in execution of a civil Court decree. The sale was conducted at the Collector's office by the revenue Court amin. The first objection taken is that the nine items of property situated in three different villages and two different parganas were sold in one lot contrary to the terms of the sale proclamation. It is a fact that the sale proclamation set out that these nine items of property should be sold separately. The lower Court states that the sale officer's note of the date of sale, 29th March 1932, is that in the midst of the public auction gathering the property was on that date first put for sale in separate lots and subsequently all together. Learned Counsel for appellant argued that there was no such note on the record and he referred to the documents for each sale. We have however ascertained that there is such a note in such terms. Two witnesses were produced...
Nawal Kishore and ors. Vs. Buttu Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All243; 153Ind.Cas.910
1. This is a decree-holders' appeal from an order confirming the sale. The property was sold at an auction on 9th October 1930, for Rs. 2,325, and was purchased by the respondent, Buttu Mal. The auction-purchaser deposited 25 per cent as required by Order 21, Rule 84, immediately, but he did not deposit the balance of the purchase money within 15 days as required by Rule 85. Possibly the reason was that an application was filed on behalf of the judgment-debtor immediately to have the sale set aside. This application remained pending for a long time and was ultimately disposed of on 18th November 1932. Previous to this date the decree-holder obtained the permission of the Court on 18th July 1931, to deposit the balance in Court and he deposited the remaining three-fourths on 27th July 1931. The decree-holder however applied that the deposit had not been made in accordance with Rule 85 and that the property should be re-sold. The learned Subordinate Judge first allowed the application ex...
Mt. Naraini Kuer Vs. Thirpal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All281; 153Ind.Cas.505
ORDER1. This is an application in civil revision by one Mt. Naraini Kuer against an order of the learned Sub ordinate Judge of Mainpuri revoking a reference to arbitration. There was. a civil suit in his Court No. 8 of 1933. Mt. Naraini Kuer v. Thirpal, and there was another suit No. 417 of 1933, Chirpal v. Somraj Somraj is the nephew of the deceased husband, of Mt. Naraini. The parties made an application jointly to the Court on 18th July 1933 stating that they were closely related to each other and that they desired arbitration of three arbitrators, Chhajju Rain, the arbitrator of Mt. Naraiji, Jagram, the arbitrator of Thirpal, and Bohra Panna Lal, said, to be the umpire of the parties. Accordingly the Court made a reference to arbitration. On 4th September 1933 an application was made on behalf of Thirpal to the effect that when the other case No. 417 of 1933 was being heard by the arbitrator the arbitrator abused the petitioner Thirpal and turned him out of the room and did not tak...
Kashi Prasad Verma Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All28; 154Ind.Cas.750
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Benares recommending that the conviction of the accused under Section 155, Municipalities Act, be set aside and Is connected with a criminal revision filed by the accused. The accused is an importer of tubes and tyres. He imported a large quantity of such goods without paying any octroi duty. There was considerable correspondence between the officers of the Municipal Board and the accused, but the accused failed to pay the octroi duty which was demanded by the Board. He was then prosecuted under Section 155 of the Act and has been convicted and fined.2. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the Board that it is not open to this Court and for the matter of that was not open to the Magistrate even to inquire into the question whether the goods were really liable to the payment of octroi. The argument is that once the Municipal authorities have chosen to assess octroi on certain goods, the only remedy open to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »