Allahabad Court May 1934 Judgments
Richpal Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All927; 152Ind.Cas.881
Bennet, J.1. This is a criminal revision filed on behalf of three persons, Richpal Singh, Khub Singh and Shiamsundar Lal who have been required to furnish security by a Magistrate under Section 110(f), Cr.P.C. for a period of three years and on a reference the learned Sessions Judge has sentenced them to imprisonment on failure to furnish the security required. Various points have been taken in revision in regard to the admissibility of different items of evidence and of different confessions. The facts which gave rise to this proceeding are that on the 6th December 1932 a C.I.D. officer visited Lakhauti College in Bulandsbahr District and arrested the accused Khuh Singh. This enquiry was made as a, result of an assault on a railway train by certain other persons. On the 9th December 1932 the accused Khub Singh was brought before a Magistrate at 7 a.m., and the Magistrate gave him time until 12 noon to reflect on the matter before making a confession and the Magistrate then gave him th...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath Vs. Audh Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All939; 153Ind.Cas.169
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision on behalf of a plaintiff under the following circumstances: The plaintiff brought a suit on a promissory note claiming interest. The trial Court referred the ease to arbitration and an award was filed awarding interest to the plaintiff. An objection wan then taken to the trial Court by the defendant that the promissory note in question did not provide for the payment of interest. The trial Court considered that this amounted to an objection as to the legality of the award apparent on the face of it within the meaning of section 14(c), Schedule 2, Civil P.C., and accordingly it referred the arbitration for the reconsideration of the arbitrator. The arbitrator then filed an award in which he did not award any future interest, and the lower Court has accepted that award and passed a decree on it. The revision is against this decree. The ground is urged in revision that the Court below had no jurisdiction to remit the award for reconsideration.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghuraj Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All956; 152Ind.Cas.873
Bennet, J.1. This is an application in criminal revision on behalf of five persons who have been convicted of riot and causing grievous hurt under Sections 147 and 325, Penal Code. Their convictions by a Magistrate were upheld on appeal by the Sessions Court. The case has been pressed in regard to applicants Raghuraj Singh and Aidal Singh. As regards Aidal Singh, he was named in the first report which only named four persons, and Raghuraj Singh was not named in the first report, but the Sessions Judge states that he finds he was the leading spirit of the opposite party. Both these persons are named as having taken part in the riot by a respectable witness, P.W. 2, B. Sup Keshore Mukhtar. This Mukhtar was. present making a local inquiry as a Commissioner in a revenue case, and it was in the course of this proceeding that the riot took place between the parties in the revenue case. The Mukhtar states that 12 or 14 men took part in the riot on behalf of the accused party and of those he r...
Tag this Judgment!Ajodhia Pershad Vs. Sari Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1011
1. This is a first appeal from order by one Ajodhis Pershad against an order, dated 13th May 1933, by a learned Subordinate Judge of Aligarh refusing the applications of Ajodhis Pershad for restoration of a suit which had been decreed ex parte against him on 15th November 1932. A preliminary objection was taken by the decree-holder, the opposite party, to the effect that prior to the date of the suit the defendant had become an insolvent in Calcutta and an Official Assignee had been appointed to take charge of the property of the insolvent. The date of the order of the insolvency was 25th August 1932. The suit in question was a suit for recovery of money by sale on the basis of a simple mortgage. Now, learned Counsel for the respondent objector states that under Section 17, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, on the making of an order of adjudication no creditor shall commence any suit without the leave of the Court. There is a proviso to that section which states:Provided that this secti...
Tag this Judgment!Chinta Mani Vs. Debi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All971
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in civil revision brought by a plaintiff-decree holder against an order of 10th August 1933, of the Deputy Commissioner of Garhwal. The facts are that there was a suit brought by the plaintiff, the present applicant, asking for the cancellation of a deed of gift and a declaration that a deed of gift did not affect his rights. This suit was dismissed with costs on 29th November 1929. A first appeal was brought by the plaintiff and was decided by this Court on 17th November 1932, and was dismissed with costs. Subsequently on 10th May 1933, the defendant made an application to the Subordinate Judge to amend the decree, the application being under Section 152, Civil P.C., on the ground that there was a clerical or arithmetical mistake in the decree. The mistake in question was in regard to the fee allowed to the successful defendant. The valuation of the suit was Rs. 6,000. The percentage admissible on this was Rs. 270, but the decree contained Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Aditya NaraIn Singh Vs. Tulshi Prasad NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All979
ORDER1. The learned Counsel for the applicant has taken a preliminary objection that this High Court is not legally constituted inasmuch as the vacancy caused by the transfer of Young, J., from Allahabad to Lahore has not been filled up. The argument of course takes it for granted that Young, J., has retired from this High Court to-day. There is no affidavit before us to show that he has actually taken over charge at Lahore. We shall however assume for the purposes of this objection that he has retired from this High Court Bench. No doubt the Government of India Act, Section 101, requires that each High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and as many other Judges as His Majesty may think fit to appoint. Up till the time of retirement of Young, J., there were certainly one Chief Justice and 8 Judges. The learned Counsel for the applicant asks us to make a second assumption that His Majesty has thought fit after the retirement of Young, J., to have one Chief Justice and 8 Judges. We m...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Etah Vs. Rani Gulab Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All322
Mukerji, J.1. When this appeal came up for hearing, Mr. Baleshwari Prasad, one of the learned Counsel for the respondent, raised the objection that this High Court was not today properly constituted, and therefore the appeal could not, be heard by us. The basis, of his argument is that Young, J., has gone away and has been appointed the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, and therefore this High Court is short by one barrister Judge. His further argument is that under Section 101, Government of India Act, at least one-third of the Judges of the High Court should be barristers and, as that rule has not been complied with, the High Court is not properly constituted.2. Of the two arguments the first is-a question of fact. We have not got any evidence before us that Young, J., is not yet a member of this Court. He went away on leave. Till he takes over charge in the Lahore High Court, he continues to be a member of this Court. We are asked to take judicial notice of the fact that Young...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Lal and ors. Vs. Dal Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All902; 152Ind.Cas.757
Collister, J.1. The appellants in this appeal wore the plaintiffs in a suit for possession of certain agricultural plots and for mesne profits. It appears that one Durga Prasad had a decree against a zamindar of the name of Shiva Prasad. In execution proceedings the decree-holder on 19th February 1928, attached Shiva Prasad's haqqiyat in which the plots in suit were included. The then tenants of the plots in suit were paying a rent of Rs. 93. But they were ejected by Shiva Prasad on 23rd May 1926. On 22nd July 1926, Shiva Prasad gave a lease of these plots to the defendants for one year at a rent of Rs. 20 plus a nazrana of Rs. 500. On 28th January 1928, the property was sold at auction and was purchased by the plaintiffs. It was pleaded on behalf of the plaintiffs that the defendants were in wrongful possession of the plots in suit and were liable to be dispossessed and to pay mesne profits by way of damages. The defence was that the defendants had entered into a lawful contract of te...
Tag this Judgment!Gurmukh Rai Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All974
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order of the High Court dated 8th December 1933, dismissing an application filed by the applicant under Section 66, Sub-section (3), Income-tax Act, praying that the Commissioner be required to state the case and to refer it to the High Court. It appears that the applicant had applied to the Commissioner of Income-tax to review the proceedings under Section 33, Income-tax Act, and praying that if he did not feel inclined to interfere with the previous order he might refer to the High Court the question of law raised in the application; but the Commissioner passed an order dated 23rd January 1933 refusing to interfere and declined to refer the case.2. A preliminary objection is taken that an appeal does not at all lie. We are of opinion that this objection has force.3. Under Clause 30 of the Letters Patent of this High Court a right of appeal was given to the Privy Council in certain circumstances. But ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurmukh Rai Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1934
Reported in: [1934]2ITR412(All)
This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order of the High Court dated 8th December, 1933, dismissing an application filed by the applicant under Section 66, sub-Section (3), of the Indian Income Tax Act praying that the Commissioner be required to state the case and to refer it to the High Court. It appears that the applicant had applied to the Commissioner of Income Tax to review the proceedings under Section 33 of the Income Tax Act and praying that if he did not feel inclined to interfere with the previous order, he might refer to the High Court the question of law raised in the application; but the Commissioner passed an order dated 23rd January, 1933, refusing to interfere and declined to refer the case.A preliminary objection is taken that an appeal dies not at all lie. We are of opinion that this objection has force.Under Clause 30 of the Letters patent of this High Court a right of appeal was given to the Privy Council in certain circumstanc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »