Allahabad Court December 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.
Firm Sant Lal-mahadeo Prasad Vs. Kedar Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All519
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in civil revision by a plaintiff against an order dated 28th March 1934, by a Special Murnsif of Allahabad, Syed Izhar Hasan. A preliminary objection has been taken that as the order in question is one 'setting aside the decree of the arbitrator,' by which presumably the Muinsif meant setting aside the award of the arbitrator and directing parties to produced evidence, therefore there was no case decided but only a case pending and no revision lay under Section 115, Civil P.C. It has been held to this effect in Risal Singh v. Faqira Singh 1932 All. 452. If the present applicant like the applicant in that case had come for the first time before this Court, I would consider that the ruling would govern the civil rivision and I would have ruled that no civil revision lay. But the facts are different. In Civil Revision No. 169 of 1933, the defendant made an application to this Court to revise the. judgment of this Munsif who made a decree in this su...
Secretary of State Vs. Messrs Neaz Ali Hamid Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1934
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.46
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision on behalf of the defendant, the Secretary of State, representing East Indian Railway against a decree of a Small Cause Court of Agra, in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 466 damages. Some points were taken by the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the applicant in revision against details of the decretal amount and he pointed out that Rs. 74 for interest allowed was calculated on the total claim of Rs. 575 and the interest should have been reduced by the Court when the Court held that the amount due to the plaintiff as damages was Rs. 392 and not Rs. 575. These details, however, need not be further considered as it appears to me that the suit is barred on the ground of limitation. The admitted facts are that:'a consignment of 30 bags of rice was sent to the plaintiff from Saharanpur to Agra and arrived on August 3, 1930. A letter is on the file of the Court dated August 5, 1931, from the plaintiff to the defendant alleging that the consig...
Waheed Hasan and ors. Vs. Abdul Rahman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All254; 157Ind.Cas.1088
ORDERRachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a revision application arising out of an application made by the applicants in the Court of the learned District Judge, asking that action under Section 10 of Act 42 of 1923, be taken against the defendants.2. Waheed Hasan filed an application in the Court of the learned District Judge praying that action under Section 10, Musalman Wakf Act of 1923, be taken against the defendants. After filing the application, Waheed Hasan did not enter appearance and the other applicants got their names substituted in his place. The allegations were that the defendants were holding as mutawallis certain wakf properties and that they had not furnished accounts. The learned District Judge, in whose Court the application was made, sent it on for disposal to the learned Additional District Judge. When the case was taken up by him it was found that the defendants denied that the properties in question were wakf properties. The learned Additional District Judge was of opin...
Gaekwar, Baroda State Railway Baroda Vs. Mohammad Habibullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All258; 157Ind.Cas.170
Kendall, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, which has been opposed on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The decree against which the appeal has been made was dated 22nd December 1933, and the present application is dated 6th April 1934. The report of the office on it is that it is fifteen days beyond time. Mr. P.L. Banerji, for the appellant, relies on the provisions of Sub-section (2), Section 12, Limitation Act, and points to the fact that the period between 22nd January 1934, when he applied for a copy of the decree, until 20th April 1934 when the copy of the decree was ready would be excluded in computing the period of limitation. Under Sub-section (2), Section 12, Limitation Act:in computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal for leave to appeal and an application for a review of judgment, the day on which the, judgment complained of was pronounced end the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence o...