Allahabad Court December 1935 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.
E.T. Robinson Vs. Mrs. R.V. Rigg and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All393; 160Ind.Cas.874
ORDERRachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision arising out of a suit to recover a sum of money. The facts which have given rise to the dispute between the parties can very briefly be stated as follows: The plaintiff is one Mrs. R. V. Rigg, carrying on business at Cawnpore. She instituted a suit against one Mrs. Robinson to recover a sum of Rs. 38-3-2. The allegation was that the plaintiff had supplied frocks, jharans, elastics and belts to Mrs. Robinson for her children to the value of the amount claimed. Later on, the husband of Mrs. Robinson was also made a party to the suit.2. Mrs. Robinson did not contest the suit, but her husband Mr. Robinson did. The Court below framed an issue as to which of the two defendants was liable for the amount claimed, and it held that defendant 2, Mr. Robinson, was liable and Mrs. Robinson was not. The result was that the suit was decreed against Mr. Robinson and dismissed against his wife Mrs. Robinson. The defendant 2, Mr. Ro...
Emperor Vs. Bhopal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All392
1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against the acquittal of one Bhopal Singh alias Bhopa who was charged with an offence under the Arms Act. This man's house had been searched in connexion with a dacoity and four blank cartridges and two lead bullets had been found in his possession. He was immediately arrested, the date being 11th November 1934. He was sent to prison and was convicted by a Magistrate on 4th March 1935, of this offence under the Arms Act, namely, the offence of keeping ammunition in his possession and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to a fine of Rs. 25. On the same date he was committed to the Court of Session on a charge of dacoity. The learned Sessions Judge decided the appeal against the conviction under the Arms Act on 4th July 1935, and acquitted the appellant. The learned Judge found that it was true that he had been in possession of the four cartridges and the two bullets, but held that these articles were not ammun...
Hanuman Singh Vs. Ram Lakhan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All740; 160Ind.Cas.868
ORDER1. This is a defendant's application in revision against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge passing a decree in accordance with the terms of an award. A suit for partition of joint family property was brought in which the applicant who is minor was a defendant. After protracted litigation since 1927 the suit was referred to arbitration. The deed of reference was signed by the guardian of the applicant on his behalf. An award was made by the arbitrators. The applicant came up in revision here and the case was sent back to the lower Court with directions to give 10 days' time to the parties to file such objections as they may wish to file to the award. Consequently 10 days' time was given to the parties for filing an objection. An objection was filed by the guardian of the applicant, but on the day fixed for the hearing of the objection the guardian absented herself and the objections filed by the parties were heard by the learned Subordinate Judge and they were all disallow...
B.B. and C.i. Ry. Vs. B. Dwarka Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All771; 155Ind.Cas.631; 165Ind.Cas.882
Sulaiman, C.J.1. I agree that the appeal should be allowed and the plaintiff's suit dismissed. There are two questions which arise in this case. The first is whether the Railway Company by not having taken sufficient precautions to prevent damage has been guilty of such negligence as to make it liable for the loss sustained by the plaintiff. The second is whether, even if the Company had been guilty of negligence, the plaintiff also has not contributed by his own default to the same negligence which resulted in the loss occasioned to his property. The first question is not free from difficulty. The case put forward by the plaintiff simply was that the grass within the railway fencing was set fire to when the defendant's engine passed that way and it was alleged in the alternative that either the fire originated from live sparks escaping from the engine or from live cinders falling down from the ash-pan of the engine, with the result that the dry grass within the railway fencing caught ...
Pannar Vs. Khunnu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.669
Allsop, J.1. This first appeal arises out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution in which the respondent Khunnu obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 150 as damages against the appellant Pannar. The appellant made a complaint on June 20, 1932, that Khunnu had thrown some acid upon him at about 7 o'clock that morning. He had already made a report to the Police at 8 o'clock and had shown his injuries to the head constable. Later in the day he went to a doctor, who examined him and gave him a certificate. It appears that he had one burn on the cheek and another on the chest and that damage had been caused to his cloths and papers.2. A question has been raised whether the doctor's evidence is admissible. He could not be found at the time when the civil suit was in progress, although he had given evidence in the Criminal Court. His previous evidence and report were taken into evidence. We do not think that it is very necessary for us to go into the question of the admissibility of thi...
Mt. Sheokumari and ors. Vs. Mathura Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All267
Collister, J.1. Mathura Ram respondent is the husband of Mt. Sheo Kumari appellant. It appears that he instituted a suit against his wife for restoration of conjugal rights and the suit was decreed. Mt. Sheo Kumari appealed, but her appeal was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur and a second appeal met the same fate in the High Court. On the day succeeding the date on which his suit was decreed by the Munsif, Mathura Ram applied under Section 25, Guardians and Wards Act, that Mt. Sheo Kumari be restored to his custody. She was living with her parents and according to his allegations she was a minor of 16 years of age. Mt. Sheo Kumari objected through her mother on the ground (1) that she had attained majority and therefore no order could be passed in respect of her under the Guardians and Wards Act (2), that Section 25 was inapplicable in view of the fact that Mathura Ram had not been appointed her guardian by the Court and (3) that her father and mother were under no obliga...
Dukhi Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All148
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application by one Dukhi Halwai of Mirzapur against an order of conviction passed by a Magistrate, First Class, of that district under Section 4, U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act. The applicant is a 'halwai' and sells among other things 'balai' and milk. On 7th March 1935 a sanitary inspector of Mirzapur went to his shop and asked for half a seer of milk. The applicant supplied that quantity of milk for one anna, that is to say, he sold at the rate of two annas a seer. The sanitary inspector there and then divided the milk bought by him into three parts, one of which was left with the applicant in a sealed phial and another part was sent in a sealed phial to the Public Analyst for examination. It was found that the milk was deficient in fat to the extent of 63 per cent. The applicant was prosecuted under the U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act and convicted. He has applied to this Court in revision. It is argued that the applicant never professed to...
Secy. of State Vs. Shaikh Zahid Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All460; 163Ind.Cas.689
Harries, J.1. This is a first appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council against an award of a tribunal acting under U.P. Town Improvement Act (Act 3 of 1920). In order to carry out certain improvements in the South Malaka area in the city of Allahabad, a house No. 14 a/4 the property of the respondent was acquired compulsorily for the Allahabad Improvement Trust. The amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for this house and the site upon which it stood was Rs. 17,324. The present respondent was dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and under the provisions of the U.P. Town Improvement Act he appealed to a tribunal constituted under that Act. The tribunal having considered the evidence in the case came to the conclusion that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was insufficient and awarded the present respondent a total sum of Rs. 25,247 for the house and land in question. The appellant being dissatisfied with this award h...
Gurcharan Prasad and anr. Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All309; 160Ind.Cas.709
Allsop, J.1. This is an application in which Babu Gurcharan Prasad and another seek a relief in the following terms, namely:That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order of the Court below and to grant the succession certificate to the applicants without any farther payment of any additional Court-fee or grant such other and further relief as it may deem fit.2. The order of the lower Court to whisk reference is made is an order passed by the District Judge of Benares on 14th. April 1934. It appears than the applicants on 15th December 1931 made an application for the issue of a succession certificate to them. They made a deposit of Rs. 5,541-8-0 estimating that that was the amount of court-fee which would have to be paid on the certificate if it was issued to them. It is not denied that this was the correct amount according to the application and to the law which was in force at that time. The proceedings were stayed for some time and then on 25th February 1933, the Cou...
Niranjan Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All141; 160Ind.Cas.870
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Aligarh, recommending that an order made by a Magistrate in the district of Etah under Section 145, Criminal P.C., should be set aside in part. There was a dispute about a house and the police made a report to the Magistrate that there was a serious danger of a breach of the peace. The Magistrate passed an order on 4th August 1935 that the house as well as the moveables in it should be attached and placed in the possession of a receiver. On 29th August 1935 he seems to have had some doubt about the legality of his previous order and he cancelled it in so far as it referred to moveable property. On 30th August 1935 he heard the parties, and came to the conclusion that the order of the 24th August should be restored. He thereupon restored it. It is suggested that that order was illegal in so far as it referred to moveable property. The Magistrate has explained that he intended only to attach such moveable p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »