Allahabad Court April 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.
Molvi Muhammad Umar Khan Vs. NaziruddIn Ahmad Minai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All1011; 159Ind.Cas.723
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The defendant-appellant is a lawyer practising in Basti. He and his two sons were entered on the electoral roll for the District Board, but when that roll was revised in the year 1931 their names were omitted. The period for making objections about entries in the rolls expired in September 1931. On 7th October the appellant made an application to the Deputy Magistrate who was acting as the returning officer or election officer and was dealing with the preparation of the roll. He complained that his name and the names of his sons had been omitted and suggested an enquiry into the reasons why this had been done. He, at the same time, said that if such an enquiry foe re made it would appear who the persons were who were concerned in the conspiracy. Then on 15th October 1931 the plaintiff-respondent, who is the editor of a paper called the 'Insaf,' published a notice in which he said that he had lea...
Nanhoon Vs. Mt. Gendiya and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All768; 158Ind.Cas.45
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in civil revision by one Nanhoon who was a supurddar appointed by an Amin. The amin attached certain crops belonging to a judgment-debtor and the supurddar to whom the crop was entrusted is found to have disobeyed an order of the Court. The Court therefore ordered that the supurddar should pay Rs. 229-10-0 with costs. The objection was taken that the liability if any could be enforced against the supurddar only by a separate suit and not in the execution department. The only rule of law under which a liabilky can be enforced in the execution department against persons other than the judgment-debtor which might possibly apply is Section 145, Civil P.C. That deals with enforcement of liability against a surety, and the section lays down the kind of surety in question:(a) for the performance of any decree or any part thereof, or (b) for the restitution of any property taken in execution of a decree or, (c) for the payment of any money, or for the f...
(Firm) Balakram-atma Ram Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All900
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for damages against the Secretary of State on account of the loss of 18 cases of vegetable oil which were consigned to Shahjahanpur from Bombay. The consignment was not delivered at Shahjahanpur and the plaintiff sent notice to the Collector of Shahjahanpur under Section 80, Civil P.C., claiming damages and after having waited for over two months brought the present suit. Admittedly no separate notice under Section 77, Railways Act, was served on any officer of the railway. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that it must fail for want of a notice under Section 77, Railways Act. The first Court held that the notice not having been given, the suit was not maintainable, and dismissed the claim. On appeal the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the notice given to the Collector was quite sufficient and the defect was cured. On appeal to this Court a Judge has come to a contrary conclusion and restored the decr...
Firm Balak Ram-atma Ram Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counci ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1935
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.541
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for damages against the Secretary of State on account of the loss of 18 cases of vegetable oil which were consigned to Shahjahanpur from Bombay. The consignment was not delivered at Shahjahanpur and the plaintiff sent notice to the Collector of Shahjahanpur under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, claiming damages and after having waited for over two months brought the present suit. Admittedly no separate notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act was served on any officer of the Railway. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that it must fail for want of a notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act. The first Court held that the notice not having been given the suit was not maintainable, and dismissed the claim. On appeal the lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that notice given to the Collector was quite sufficient and the defect was cured. On appeal to this Court a learned Judge has come to a contrary conclusi...
Emperor Vs. Jafar Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All814
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application in revision which has been referred to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge with the recommendation that the convictions and sentences passed on the applicants should be set aside.2. One of the appellants was fined Rs. 60 for the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt. The other two were fined Rs. 20 each for voluntarily causing simple hurt. The grievous hurt was a fracture of the skull. It appears, that there was a fight over irrigation in which the applicants beat the complainant. The reference is due to alleged irregularities in procedure. The case was tried by a Bench of Honorary Magistrates. They convicted the accused but on appeal to the District Magistrate a re-trial was ordered upon the ground that the accused, although they had been examined at one stage, had not been examined after all the, witnesses for the prosecution had been, heard. After remand, the order was passed which is the subject of this reference. The direction i...
Ram Sewak Vs. Bahal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All888
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that a certain property belongs to the plaintiff and does not belong to Raghubir and is not attachable and saleable in execution of the decree of Banal and others against Raghubir. There was a suggestion in the trial Court that a previous decree obtained by the plaintiff against Raghubir was a collusive decree, but no issue was framed on the point, and although the defendants lost in the first Court, they did not raise that question again in the grounds of appeal to the lower appellate Court. The point must be taken to have been abandoned. On the question of fact the finding is in favour of the respondent that the deed of gift executed in favour of the plaintiff's father was not a genuine transaction, but was a fictitious document executed with some ulterior motive. It follows therefore that the plaintiff is not entitled to base his claim on the deed of gift.2. The only question that remains is the question of res ...
Nek Ram and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All920
Allsop, J.1. There are five appellants in this case. Two of them Nek Ram and Nathu Ram have been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500, a third Grend Singh to a fine of Rs. 100 and the two remaining ones Tej Singh and Harnarain to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and three years respectively. Nek Ram, Grend Singh and Tej Singh have been sentenced under Section 366, Penal Code, and Nathu Ram and Harnarain under Section 366, read with Section 109 Penal Code. The charge, framed was one of abduction with the intent that the woman or girl concerned should be married against her will. This girl Mst. Gulkandi is the sister of the appellant Tej Singh and the daughter of one Mst. Chandrawalli who was left a widow 14 years before the alleged occurrence. Harnarain appellant is Mst. Chandrawalli's brother. The allegation was that the five appellants entered' into a conspiracy in order to marry, this girl Mst. Gulkandi to Nek Ram. The defence was that she had already-been married to Nek Ram...
Ramji Lal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All913
ORDERAllsop, J.1. The six applicants have been fined Rs. 26 each under Section 147, Penal Code and Rs. 26 each under Section. 323, Penal Code, for rioting and voluntarily causing simple hurt to certain other persons. They have also been bound over to keep the peace under Section 106, Criminal P.C.2. It appears that a case under Section 498, Penal Code, was proceeding between the husband of one Mst. Chandro and some person or persons who were connected with the applicants. A bailable warrant was issued for the arrest of this Mst. Chandro and was delivered to a head constable and three constables. These officers proceeded to the village where the woman was alleged to be living, i.e., the village of Barhauna. The complainant in the 498 case and friends or relations of his from the village of Barla joined the police party. All these persons reached Barla early in the morning and proceeded to arrest Mt. Chandro with the result that they were attacked and some of them were injured.3. The def...
Moti Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All652; 157Ind.Cas.146
ORDERKendall, J.1. The applicant Moti Lal has been convicted of an offence under Section 180, Penal Code, read with Section 480, Criminal P.C. for refusing to sign, his statement recorded in the course of a criminal proceeding against him. The facts are given in the order of the appellate Court. The present application is made on the ground that the Court was not legally competent to require that he should sign the statement. It appears that the applicant had already made a statement which was referred to as the statement under Section 364, Criminal P.C. and that on a subsequent date after there had been some further cross-examination of the witnesses the Court put further questions to him which, he refused to answer and then refused to sign this later statement. It is argued that on the second occasion, when in fact there was no statement by the accused there was no obligation on him to sign the record, and that he was protected by Sub-section (2), Section 342, Criminal P.C. which is ...
Lieut. Basil Douglas Hope Dunbar Vs. Mrs. Evelyn Diana Hope Dunbar and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All763
ORDERThom, J.1. This is a petition by Lt, Basil Douglas Hope-Dunbar of the Cameron Highlanders against Mrs. Evelyn Diana Hope-Dunbar. his wife, and Captain J.W.T. Woolridge of the Indian Army Service Corps. The petition is presented under the Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act of 1926. In the petition the petitioner prays for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground of her adultery with the co-respondent. In para. 17 of his petition the petitioner avers that the respondent committed adultery with the co-respondent in July, August and September 1933, at Bombay in October 1933 and in Bareilly between the last week of December 1933 and the first week of January 1934. The respondent, has taken a preliminary objection to this petition. She has contended that this. Court should refuse to entertain the petition upon the ground that it is not in, the interests of justice that the1 petition be adjudicated upon by a Court in India and that no sufficient cause has b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »