Allahabad Court September 1934 Judgments
Municipal Board of Mainpuri Vs. Ajudhia Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All51
Bajpai, J.1. This is a second appeal by the Municipal Board of Mainpuri who was defendant 1 in the Court below. The plaintiff, Ajudhia Prasad, brought a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,500, which he claimed as damages from the two defendants. The second defendant was the Secretary of State for India in Council. The allegations contained in the plaint were that the plaintiff was an advocate practising at Agra, that on 23rd March 1929, when the plaintiff was working at his place with his clients the plaintiff's horse and carriage were distrained by the defendants when as a matter of fact nothing was due from the plaintiff, and as a result of this wrongful action the plaintiff suffered damages. It was stated in the plaint that the plaintiff had served a notice claiming Rs. 5,250 as the amount of damages, but the plaintiff was advised to claim in the suit the moderate sum of Rs. 1,500 only as compensation for the wrongful distraint. None of the defendants admitted their liability, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Krishna Dutt Dube Vs. Mt. Ahmadi Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All187; 153Ind.Cas.703
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits in respect of 78.78 acres of land, alleged to form part of the plaintiff's mahal in village Birampur Kham in the district of Jaunpur. Defendant 1 is a 'mutawalli' of a certain 'wakf' to which, villages Gaura and Bhelpur belong. The other defendants, 55 in number, arc tenants in cultivating possession of the land in, dispute. The suit was dismissed by the lower Court, and the plaintiff appeals.2. The plaintiff's village Bitrampur Kham lies on the northern bank of river Gomti. The defendants' villages Gaura and Bhelpur, lie on the south, with a westerly direction. The plaintiff's case, as set out in his plaint, is as follows:The land in dispute lay on the north of river Gomti before 1894, and was an intergral part of village Birampur Kham. The river was flooded in the year 1894, and since that year gradually shifted to the north throwing up land on the south adjoining the defendants' villag...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: H, a Vakil
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All321
1. This is an application by T.H. who was on the roll of Vakils of this Court till he was disbarred on 25th June 1930. The applicant prays that in. our exercise of the right of clemency we should order the restoration of his name to the roll of vakils. It was pointed out by a Bench of this Court in the matter of a pleader of Cawnpore that:it has been held in a number of oases that although there is no express provision for a review of an order made under the Legal Practitioners Act, there is inherent power in the High Court to restore a pleader whose name has been struck off the rolls,and several authorities were cited. In the present case the vakil was disbarred on 25th June 1930, because pertain charges of professional misconduct were held to be established against him. The vakil applied for special leave to appeal to the Privy Council and while their Lordships refused to give leave they pointed out that it is desirable that where grave criminal charges are levelled against a legal p...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: H, a Vakil, Banda
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1934
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.243
1. This is an application by T.H. who was on the roll of Vakils of this Court till he was disbarred on June 25, 1930. The applicant prays that in our exercise of the right of clemency we should order the restoration of his name to the roll of Vakils. It was pointed out by a Bench of this Court in the matter of a Pleader of Cawnpore that: 'it has been held in a number of cases that although there is no express provision for a review of an order made under the legal Practitioners Act, there is inherent power in the High Court to restore a Pleader whose name has been struck off the rolls,' and several authorities were cited. In the present case the Vakil was disbarred on June 25, 1930, because certain charges of professional misconduct were held to be established against him. The Vakil applied for special leave to appeal to the Privy Council and while their Lordships refused to give leave they pointed out that it is desirable that where grave criminal charges are levelled against a legal ...
Tag this Judgment!(Firm) Puttu Lal Kunji Lal Vs. (Firm) B. Jagannath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All53; 155Ind.Cas.44
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand and the appeal is directed to the decision by the Court below that the plaintiffs' claim with the exception of a small sum of. Rs. 49-13-3 is barred by time. The plaintiff alleged in his plaint that he had a firm of commission agents dealing in betel leaves at Mohoba in the district of Hamirpur, and that the defendant was a firm dealing in betel leaves in the city of Aligarh. The plaint went on to say that the defendant purchased betel leaves from the plaintiff's firm between 17th November 1926 to 17th November 1928 of the value of Rs. 10,095-1-9 and paid Rs. 9,426-7-6 up to 16th November 1928 and as such a balance of Rupees 668-10-3 was due to the plaintiff from the defendant under account. This sum together with interest was claimed in the plaint.2. The lower appellate Court has held that as the suit was instituted on 10th August 1931, the claim for the price of articles supplied before 10th August 1928 was barred by time. There ...
Tag this Judgment!(Mirza) HusaIn Yar Beg Vs. (Sahu) Radha Kishan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All134; 155Ind.Cas.89
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a cross-objection filed by one of the defendants-respondents in an appeal which has been compromised between the appellant and the plaintiff-respondents. A preliminary objection has been taken by the plaintiffs-respondents that the cross-objections which are directed solely against them are not maintainable under Order 41, Rule 22, Civil P.C. To appreciate the arguments addressed to us it is necessary to bear in mind the following facts. The property in dispute is village Tewar Khas. It belonged to one Mohammad Husain who had a son Ahmad Husain and three daughters, only two of whom need be mentioned, namely, Bashiruzzaman Bibi and Shaukatuzzaman Bibi. Mohammad Husain executed a deed of gift in favour of his son Ahmad Husain sometime in 1883. Not long afterwards he instituted a suit for the cancellation of that deed. The principal defendant was his son Ahmad Husain, the donee. The controversy was referred to an arbitration by a common friend whose award dated 1...
Tag this Judgment!L. Kirpa Ram Vs. Balak Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All47
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision by the plaintiff whose suit for recovery of Rupees 339-8-0 on foot of a bond dated 13th April 1929 was dismissed by the lower Court (Small Cause Court at Pilibhit) on the ground that it was barred by limitation.2. The suit was instituted on 14th August 1933, i.e., more than three years from the date of the bond. The principal sum advanced was Rs. 475 which carried interest at the rate of 1 per cent per mensem. On 22nd March 1930 a sum of Rs. 275 was paid. This payment will not however save limitation as the suit was instituted more than three years from the date on which it was made. The plaintiff relies on the payment by the defendant of Rs. 20, on 15th December 1931, which its alleged to be noted on the back of the bond in the handwriting of the defendant. The defendant, denied the bond and payments alleged by the plaintiff. The lower Court has not recorded any finding on any other question arising in the case but dismissed t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ram Mohan Lal Agarwala
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All38; 155Ind.Cas.33
ORDER1. Mr. Ram Mohan Lal Agarwala, an advocate practising in the High Court at Allahabad, has been directed to show cause why he should not be convicted for contempt of Court in respect of certain passages in election manifestoes which were issued by him in furtherance of his candidature for membership of the Bar Council of Allahabad at the recent Bar Council election. In five of these manifestoes the advocate made certain statements in respect of which the Court issued these notices. For the sake of convenience the arguments of the counsel for the advocate will, be dealt with in one judgment. In the manifesto which is the subject of case No. 436 Mr. Ram Mohan Lal stated:The favoured few get tons and tons of money every month and also command respect because they are on the top already. They are above board. The Judge cannot snub them.2. Coming from a member of the Bar this statement is undoubtedly highly objectionable. It is a statement, to which we would have thought no respectable ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Pande Vs. Ram Swarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All119; 152Ind.Cas.1015
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. These two revisions arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Pandit Ram Sarup for recovery of Re. 700, which the defendant agreed to pay as the price of assignment made by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant of certain decrees. The assignment is evidenced by a deed dated 6th November 1929. It is common ground that on that date the plaintiff executed another document in favour of the defendant which is a sale-deed in respect of his proprietary rights in a mahal in village Pandri, District Bareilly in lieu of Rs. 7,500. The sale-deed provides that the vendor would relinquish his ex-proprietary rights that would accrue in 'sir' and 'khudkasht' lands on transfer of his proprietary rights. The vendor undertook to have mutation of names effected in favour of the vendee in respect of the land sold free from his own ex-proprietary rights. By the other deed the vendor assigned arrears of rent then due to him and a decree against a third person in lieu of Rs. 700....
Tag this Judgment!Girdhari Lal Agarwala Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All181; 153Ind.Cas.351
Kisch, J.1. Mr. Girdhari Lal Agarwala applied as amicus curiae that Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru at present serving a sentence of imprisonment in Naini Central Jail be set at liberty forthwith.2. The application is made under Section 491, Criminal P.C., and Mr. Agar-wala contends that Pandit Jawahar Lal is illegally or improperly detained in the said jail within the meaning of Sub-clause (b) of that section.3. It is admitted that Pandit Jawahar Lal has been convicted by a competent Court and sentenced to undergo 2 years' simple imprisonment. It is difficult to see how any person undergoing a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a competent Court can be said to be illegally or improperly detained in jail.4. Mr. Agarwala's contention is that because Pandit Jawahar Lal was released from custody for some days on or about 12th August 1934, to enable him to be at the bedside of Mrs. Jawahar Lal Nehru who unfortunately was seriously ill. The release amounted to a remission of the unexpired portion...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »