Allahabad Court September 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.
Munshi Ram and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All11
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is an application in revision by Munshi Ram and Ram Chander against their convictions and sentences under Sections 5 and 6, Child Marriage Restraint Act (19 of 1929) vide copy of the judgment of the trial Court which was confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur. The daughter of Ram Chander has been married to the son of Munshi Ram. The age of the girl is over 14 years and therefore she is not a child as defined in the Act. The age of the boy was under 18 years and therefore be is a child. A child as defined in the Act means a person who, if a male is under 18 years of age, if a female is under 14 years of age. It is not denied that the marriage has been performed, but no Gauna ceremony has been performed as yet. The fact that the Gauna ceremony has not been performed as yet does not affect the performance of the marriage, which -is complete as soon as the ceremony or the marriage is performed. Consummation is riot a part of the marriage...
Kandhe and ors. Vs. Jhanjan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All1
Bennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by the plaintiffs against an order of a lower appellate Court, the learned District Judge of Bareilly, ordering that a -certain compromise should be recorded under Order 23, Rule 3 as an adjustment of a certain suit. The facts which have led up to this matter are as follows:2. In the village of Rathaura the Hindu community brought a representative suit, No. 262 of 1931, for a declaration that their community was entitled to worship and blow conches and ring bells in the village and a decree was granted to them on 9th April 1931. On 20th February 1932 the present suit was brought by seven Muhammadans on behalf of the Muhammadan community, suit No. 443 of 1933, and the suit was registered on the 30th August 1932. This suit was for a declaration of the right of the Muhammadan community to slaughter cows in the village and to sell beef in the village. It was brought against 24 Hindus as representing the Hindu community. During the pendency of this suit...
L. Parsotam Saran Vs. L. Bankey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All1041; 159Ind.Cas.788
Sulaiman, C.J.1. The facts of the case are given in our order in Civil Revision No. 589 of 1934. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that he was entitled to a decree not only against defendant 2, but also against defendant 1; because the instrument was a negotiable instrument governed by the Negotiable Instruments Act, and he has a right to recover the amount from the prior party thereto himself under Section 43 of that Act. Now under that section if any such party has transferred the instrument with or without endorsement to a holder for consideration, such holder may recover the amount due from any prior party thereto. The question then is whether the instrument has been transferred to the plaintiff as a holder thereof.2. The instrument was not negotiated, but the amount due under the promissory note was transferred to the plaintiff under a sale deed, and a mere note was made on the back of the promissory note that the amount due under it had been transferred to the plaintiff ...
(Firm) Meghraj-roormal Vs. (Firm) Anup Singh-battu Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All1004
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,400 on account of the loss suffered by the plaintiff-respondent in certain forward contracts for the purchase of grain-pits entered into by the plaintiff firm on behalf of the defendant firm. The plaintiff firm carries on the business of commission agents in Ghaziabad and the defendant firm carries on business in Lucknow. The business of commission agency carried on by the plaintiff firm is admittedly on what is known as the pakka arhat system. The position of a pakka arhatia is analogous to that of a del credere agent who incurs only a secondary liability towards the principal, and whose legal position is partly that of an insurer and partly that of a surety for the parties with whom he deals to the extent of any default by reason of any insolvency or something equivalent: vide, Champa Ram v. Tulshi Ram 1927 All. 617.2. The defendant firm entered into certain forward contracts for th...
Firm Meghraj Roormal Vs. Firm Anup Singh-battu Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.984
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,400 on account of the loss suffered by the plaintiff-respondent in certain forward contracts for the purchase of grain-pits entered into by the plaintiff firm on behalf of the defendant firm. The plaintiff firm carries on the business of commission agents in Ghaziabad and the defendant firm carries on business in Lucknow. The business of commission agency carried on by the plaintiff firm is admittedly on what is known as the pakka arhat system. The position of a pakka arhatia is analogous to that of a del credere agent who incurs only a secondary liability towards the principal, and whose legal position is partly that of an insurer and partly that of a surely for the parties with whom he deals to the extent of any default by reason of any insolvency or something equivalent: Vide Champa Ram v. Tulshi Ram : AIR1927All617 .2. The defendant firm entered into certain forward contracts for ...
L. Shiam Lal Vs. Shiam Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All1008; 159Ind.Cas.433
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The arguments in this appeal have extended over a wide range, but we have come to the conclusion that the decrees of the Courts below are perfectly correct and ought to be affirmed.2. The suit giving rise to the present appeal was for settlement of accounts and, if necessary, for the dissolution of a partnership, which was entered into between the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondents by means of a registered deed of partnership dated 9th March 1925. The partnership was to run an oil mill at Allahabad. The building and the machinery belonged to the defendants and the plaintiff agreed to invest a sum up to Rs. 40,000 as working capital. It was provided in the deed of partnership that no partner shall have the right to dissolve the partnership for a period of three years, and that if the partners desired to carry on the partnership business after the expiry of three years they could do so with mutual consent. It was also provided by the deed that at the time...
Nath Sah Vs. Lala Durga Sah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All160
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit on a promissory note, dated 22nd June 1929 for Rs. 900 which contained no mention of any liability to pay interest. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the promissory note had been executed in respect of Mine old debt and after borrowing money in cash. In his defence the defendant pleaded that he had received only Rupees 200 out of the amount of the promissory note and did not get the balance. He also denied his liability to pay interest, which the plaintiff had alleged had been agreed upon orally to be at 1 per cent per mensem. The plaintiff replied that although only Rs. 200 had been paid in cash, the balance of Rs. 700 consisted of a sum of Rs. 500 due on a previous promissory note of 15th April 1926 and Rs. 200 interest due thereon at 1 per cent per mensem as well as Rs. 20 on a parole debt. The Court of first instance decreed the claim for Rs. 900 together with past and future interest at six per cent per ann...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›