Allahabad Court July 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.
Emperor Vs. Bhaggan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All931; 159Ind.Cas.26
1. Forty-seven persons were put on their trial before a Magistrate of Ghazipur on charges under Sections 145 and 152, Penal Code. The trial Court convicted 18 of the accused under the above named sections and sentenced each of them to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment on each count, the sentences to be concurrent. The rest were acquitted. The 18 persons who were convicted appealed to the Sessions Judge and the latter allowed the appeals of eleven of them. As regards the remaining seven he altered the conviction to one under Section 151, Penal Code, and reduced the sentences to 3 months rigorous imprisonment.2. The Local Government have appealed against the acquittal of these 18 persons under Sections 145 and 151, Penal Code, and have also filed an application in revision praying that in the alternative the sentences which have been inflicted upon 7 of the accused be enhanced.3. Notice has not been served on respondent No. 11, Mulchand, and so his case is not before us. The facts...
(Bohra) Tara Chand Vs. Haibat Shah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All1003; 158Ind.Cas.233
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff against concurring decrees of the two lower Courts. The facts are that the plaintiff was mortgagee on a hypothecation bond dated 26th August 1912, executed by three persons. The plaintiff brought a suit for sale on his bond on 25th August 1924, impleading one Saadat Shah and on 26th January 1927, the plaintiff applied to bring the heirs of Saadat Shah on the record as Saadat Shah had died on 13th April 1926. Saadat Shah left a widow whom the plaintiff would not admit to be the legally married wife of Saadat Shah, and it was held that she was a legal widow. The Court held that Saadat Shah had no interest in the property and the lower appellate Court upheld this finding. On appeal to the High Court it was decided that Saadat Shah had an interest as the son and nephew of the original mortgagors. On 11th December 1930, the High Court set aside the decrees of the Courts below and remanded the case under Order 41, Rule 23, for a finding on ...
Pokhar Singh Vs. Tula Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All1016; 158Ind.Cas.202
1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal from an order dismissing; an objection under Section 47, Civil P.C., to an auction sale. In execution of a simple money decree a house of the judgment-debtor-objector was attached, sometime before 13th December 1931. He did not appear at all to rile any objection to the attachment. Various, steps were taken and notices were issued under Order 21, Rule 50, for the judgment-debtor to appear at the time of the settlement of the terms of the-proclamation of sale; but he did not appear at all. Ultimately the property attached was sold on 19th January 1933, and purchased by the decree-holder. Before however the sale could be confirmed, the judgment-debtor on 18th February 1933, filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, praying for the setting a side of the sale on the ground of certain irregularities and fraud in conducting and publishing it. Later, on 27th April 1933, but before the sale could be confirmed, he filed another application under Section...
(Hakim) Syed Mohammad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All902
ORDERHarries, J.1. This is an application by Hakim Syed Mohammad for revision of an order of the learned Sessions Judge of the Bijnore District, refusing to expunge certain remarks concerning the applicant contained in a judgment delivered by Chaudhri Harpal Singh Saheb, First Class Magistrate, Bijnore, dated 14th May 1934, in the criminal case of King Emperor v. Hakim Syed Mohammad and others.2. The case of King-Emperor v. Hakim Syed Mohammad and others arose out of an affray which took place in a mosque at Dhampur on 1st March 1934 at about 8-30 p.m. The case for the prosecution was that the present applicant together with Khan Mohammad and six other persons formed an unlawful assembly with the object of belabouring two persons, namely, Khallan Khan and Rahimdad Khan, and that in pursuance of this common object they did belabour these two persons and also attacked them with knives causing each of them injuries of varying severity. The case, as presented by the prosecution, was that t...
Shri Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All926; 159Ind.Cas.198; 1935 Cri LJ 1140
Harries, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of the Agra District recommending that an order passed by a learned Magistrate under Section 133, Criminal P.C., ordering the applicant to demolish the whole of a latrine within three days from the receipt of notice be set aside on the ground that the order of the Court below was made without jurisdiction and is illegal. The facts 6f the case shortly are that at the time in question the applicant was building a latrine upon his own land and it appears that the authorities were afraid that such a latrine when completed and in use would amount to a nuisance. Consequently upon information received, the learned Magistrate commenced proceedings against the applicant tinder Section 133, Criminal P.C., and in due course an order was passed requiring the applicant to remove the nuisance by demolishing the whole of the latrine and closing the door within ten days.2. In my judgment this order is clearly illegal and must b...
Hakim Syed Muhammad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.881
ORDERHarries, J.1. This is an application by Hakim Syed Muhammad for revision of an order of the learned Sessions Judge of the Bijnore District, refusing to expunge certain remarks concerning the applicant contained in a judgment delivered by Chaudhuri Harpal Singh Saheb, First Glass Magistrate, Bijnore, dated May 14, 1934, in the criminal case of Emperor v. Hakim Syed Muhammad and others.2. The case of King-Emperor v. Hakim Syed Muhammad and others arose out of an affray which took place in a mosque at Dhampur on March 1, 1934, at about 8-30 P.M. The case for the prosecution was that the present applicant together with Khan Muhammad and six other persons formed an unlawful assembly with the object of belabouring two persons, namely, Khallan Khan and Rahimdad Khan and that in pursuance of this common object, they did belabour these two persons and also attacked them with knives causing each of them injuries of varying severity. The case, as presented by the prosecution was that the rea...
Lachman Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All905
ORDERHarries, J.1. These are two applications for revision of an order of the learned Sessions Judge of the Shahjahanpur District confirming orders of a learned Magistrate convicting the applicant of an offence under Section 141(1) read with Section 268, Cantonments Act, and of an offence under Section 141(2) of the same Act. The applicant was the occupier of certain premises within the cantonment area. On 18th September 1934 a notice was served upon him by the Executive Officer of the Cantonment authority requiring him to remove certain filth which had accumulated on his premises and to render the same clean and sanitary within 24 hours of the service of the notice. The applicant did nothing and appears to have informed the Cantonment Authority that it was impossible for him to remove all the rubbish which had accumulated on the premises within 24 hours. The Cantonment authority gave him a short extension of time, but nothing was done within that period.2. In due course proceedings we...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›