Allahabad Court April 1936 Judgments
In Re: Reference under Schedule 4, Workmen's Compensation Act (amendme ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All690; 165Ind.Cas.189
ORDER1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Meerut under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Presumably the question as to whether the dependants of Alam Singh are entitled to compensation has been submitted for the decision of the High Court under Section 27 of the Act. The District Magistrate is the Commissioner for workmen's compensation appointed by the Local Government. The District Magistrate has differed from the opinion of his predecessor, but has not sent a copy of that opinion nor has he quoted the schedule under which the case would fall. Alam Singh was employed as a tube-well-operator under the Executive Engineer, and while still under training he was employed in a leave vacancy at the Bhatipura Block and met with an accident on 14th May 1935 on account of a fall which disabled his legs and ultimately proved fatal. Act 15 of 1933, containing the latest amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923, applies to this case. Under Schedule 2, Clause 16, a person...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Reference by Junior Secretary Board of Revenue
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All481; 163Ind.Cas.614
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 57, Stamp Act (Act 2 of 1899), by the Board of Revenue for decision by this Court of the question whether a certain document is a ' bond' within the meaning of Clause (c), Sub-section (5) of Section 2, Stamp Act, chargeable under Article 15 or a mortgage of crops chargeable under Article 41, or a simple agreement for sale of goods and merchandise within the purview of Exemp. (a) to Article 5, Stamp Act. The instrument in question was executed by one Thakuri Singh in favour of a firm styled Messrs. Kila Chand Deva Chand & Company of Bombay, proprietors of Kesar Sugar Works, Baheri. The latter had advanced to the executant of the instrument a sum of Rs. 40 apparently some time before the execution of the document. The first stipulation contained in the document expressly mortgages certain sugarcane crop belonging to the executant and standing in certain fields mentioned in the document. The deed proceeds to lay down that the executant would suppl...
Tag this Judgment!Lachhmi NaraIn Vs. Shanker Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All670
ORDER1. These are four applications to this Court, two first appeals and two civil revisions, and in all of these applications the point raised is in regard to an order of the Court below refusing to restore a suit. The facts are as follows in regard to the various suits which were tried together. 4th April 1932 was fixed for issues and 20th and 21st May were fixed for final disposal. On 8th April 1932 Lachhmi Narain made an application on account of his son's wedding, asking that the date should be changed from 20th May. The opposite party raised no objection and the Court fixed the dates of 3rd and 4th June 1932. 3rd June was a holiday and on 4th June the case was taken up. There were two learned Counsel on behalf of Lachhmi Narain. One of these learned Counsel appeared in Court and moved an application for further adjournment on the ground of a medical certificate stating that his client was ill and had been ill for 5 or 6 days and would be ill for a further 10 days There was also t...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Majeed Vs. Abdul Rashid and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All598
1. This is a defendant's second appeal against a decree of the lower appellate Court confirming a decision of the Court of first instance decreeing the plaintiff's claim for damages. The matter arose in this way: Abdul Rashid, the plaintiff and his brother Abdul Haq, were the owners of certain property set out in the plaint and which is the subject matter of this dispute. On 18th July 1924, Abdul Haq alone executed a lease of the property in dispute in favour of Abdul Majid, defendant 2, who is the present appellant, and Maqsad Khan. This lease was for a term of seven years at an annual rental of Rs. 500. Shortly afterwards Maqsad Khan executed a sub-lease of his rights to Qadar Bux, defendant 1. On 2nd September 1927, Abdul Rashid mortgaged the whole of the property in dispute in favour of defendants 3 and 4 for Rupees 2,000. On 21st June 1928, Abdul Rashid, executed a usufructuary mortgage of the whole of the property in favour of one Bakkas for five years to secure a sum of Rs. 4,00...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bhuneshar Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All531
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Basti recommending that the order of the Magistrate, dated 23rd October 1935, under Section 145 , Criminal P.C., be set aside, and he (the Magistrate) be directed to make a fresh enquiry under Section 145, Criminal P.C., if he were of the opinion that the dispute was likely to cause a breach of the peace.2. Four plots in khata khewat No. 5 of village Melan Khurd Guzru are owned by a number of co-sharers. They were leased some years ago to Mahadeo and Sarsuti who were subsequently ejected. The lessors obtained possession over the plots in October 1931. Before their ejectment the lessees (Mahadeo and Sarsuti) got the plots entered in the name of their grandson Bhuneshar as his statutory tenancy. The co-sharers then filed a case for the correction of revenue papers and for the entry of their names as Khudkasht holders. They were successful. Some of the co-sharers leased the plot to Bhagwantman. In Septem...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Barmanand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All691; 165Ind.Cas.182
ORDER1. This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar, recommending that the sentences passed by a Tahsildar Magistrate of that District on Barmanand and Jhabboo for offences under Sections 406 and 323, I.P.C., be enhanced. The facts which led to the reference are as follows: The complainant Baldeva and the accused are Sunars by caste. The evidence shows that Barmanand actually carries on the profession of a goldsmith. On 24th April 1935, Baldeva filed a complaint in the Court of the Subdivisional Officer, Jansat, alleging that a few days before the complaint he had taken a pair of gold bangles to the accused Barmanand and offered to sell them to the latter, and that it was agreed that Barmanand would give 1 3/4 tolas of gold and 8 1/4 tolas of silver in lieu of the bangles which were 'sold' to Barmanand. On Baldeva demanding 13/4 tolas of gold and 81/4 tolas of silver, which Barmanand had agreed to give him, the latter said that he would give them after the b...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Mohammad Aitzad Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All704; 165Ind.Cas.1
1. This is a first appeal by the defendants against a decree of a learned Subordinate Judge in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant 1, appellant, Khan Bahadur Munshi Ahmad Ali Khan, executed a deed of wakf in favour of himself and his descendants and his family on 18th May 1916, and appointed himself mutawalli of the endowed property during his lifetime. He provided for a share of the profits of the property for his two daughters who were then surviving, Mt. Rabia Khatun and Mt. Taswir Fatma, and the plaintiffs claim that the plaintiffs are the descendants of these two ladies. The two ladies died during the lifetime of the wakif. On 21st November 1931 M. Ahmad Ali Khan executed what he called a supplement to the wakfnama by means of which he cut off the descendants of his two daughters from inheriting any profits in the wakf.2. These descendants of the two ladies have now sued for a declaration that this supplementary deed of wakf of 21st November 1931 be held to be void and ineffectual...
Tag this Judgment!Secy. of State Vs. Mt. Nuran Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All702; 165Ind.Cas.461
1. This is a first appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council against a decree of the Allahabad Improvement Trust Tribunal. The Tribunal had an application before them against the award of the then acquisition officer for compensation for certain premises. The amount of compensation was increased by the Tribunal by Rs. 4,600. The objection which has been taken is that the Tribunal was not properly constituted during the course of the trial of the case and therefore that its award was without jurisdiction. On pp. 12 and 13 of the paper book the order sheet for 25th August 1932, one of the dates of the hearing, is printed. This states that two members of the Tribunal, out of three, were present and one member, Hafiz Ghazanfarullah, was absent on that date. The Government Pleader took an objection that the case should not be taken up as one of the assessors was absent. The two members present however decided to proceed with the hearing of witnesses and on that date three witnes...
Tag this Judgment!Maikoo Lal and anr. Vs. Santoo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All576
1. The question referred to this bench for decision is as follows:Is a will validly attested within the meaning of the provisions of Section 63 Succession Act, if either of the attesting witnesses has merely affixed his mark to the will2. The material portions of Section 63 Succession Act, are as follows:(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the will, or it shall be signed by some other person In his presence and by his direction. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. (C) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator...each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of testator....3. Learned Counsel for the appellants con-tended...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board Vs. Babu Ram Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All723; 165Ind.Cas.439
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the Municipal Board of Agra through its Chairman against a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Agra in favour of the plaintiff, a contractor B. Ram Lal. The plaint claimed that the plaintiff had constructed 23 works in the year 1930, the works being completed in April, May, June and July of that year, and that there was a balance due to the plaintiff of Rs. 4,696 on these works and also three items of the security of Rs. 300, 50 and 50. Para. 3 of the plaint stated:That in response to the orders placed with him by the Municipal Board, Agra, through defendants 2 and 3, the plaintiff during the year 1930-31 executed repairs and the constructions of the work specified in annexure A, which also gives full particulars about the dates on which the respective works were completed and on which the bills relating thereto were delivered to the defendant Board as well as the amounts of the bills.2. Para. 2 of the plaint stated that on 2nd April 1930 t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »