Allahabad Court September 1936 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.
Harish Chandra Vs. Kavindra NaraIn Sinha and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All830
ORDER1. In this case an application was filed purporting to be under Section 85, Companies Act, making allegations against several directors of the Bharat Dharma Syndicate, Ltd., of Benares. The allegation inter alia was that the opposite party who is one of the directors had contravened the provisions of Section 85, Companies Act, inasmuch as he had acted as a director without possessing qualification shares in accordance with Article 56 of the Articles of Association. A question arose as to whether his prosecution could be ordered or whether he could be tried by the High Court. Accordingly the following questions have been referred to this Full Bench for answers: (1) Are contraventions of the provisions the Companies Act 'offences'? (2) If so, has the High Court jurisdiction to take cognizance of and try such offences and to impose the fines prescribed by the provisions of the Act? Section 85(3), Companies Act, like numerous other sections of the Act makes any unqualified person who ...
Mt. Gulab Devi Vs. Kunwar Abdul Ghafur Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All868; 166Ind.Cas.229
Bennet, J.1. This is an execution second appeal by Mt. Gulab Devi, judgment-debtor, whose objection has been dismissed by the two Courts below. The opposite party are the decree-holders. The opposite party had obtained a decree in the revenue Court on 9th November 1921, against Mt. Gulab Devi. Various proceedings in execution followed and the question before the Court below in first appeal was whether a certain application for execution, dated 31st July 1933, was or was not time barred. The decision on this point involved the decision as to whether a certain application for restoration of 4th March 1927 was a step in aid of execution and as to whether a certain application for execution of 28th January 1927 was a valid application in execution although it was not signed by all the heirs of the original decree-holder. The Court below has come to a decision contrary to Mt. Gulab Devi on these points and therefore she has brought a second appeal. A preliminary objection is taken that no s...
Mahabir Ram Vs. Ram Krishen Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All855; 166Ind.Cas.276
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed on a preliminary issue by the dower appellate Court. The plaintiff brought a suit against a number of defendants alleging in para. 1 of the plaint:The defendants who are the members of a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law...carried on shops of provisions, etc., at different places and defendant 1 is the leading member (karta) of the defendants' family. The defendants had a shop styled Dwarka Ram, Krishan Ram at Chit Baragaon, district Ballia; one shop at Rallia and one shop at Mukta Ganjha.2. The plaintiff proceeded to set out that certain debts arose from money dealings between the shop of the plaintiff and the defendants on account of the price of provisions supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants and the plaintiff claimed a decree against all the defendants as a joint Hindu family for these debts. Now the pedigree with the plaint showed that three defendants were the sons of Dwarka Ram...
(Firm) Ram Kumar-rameshwar Lal Vs. Prem Sukh Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All857; 166Ind.Cas.231
1. This is an appeal by an attaching decree-holder and arises out of an application made by him for the preparation of a final decree. The appellant had a simple money decree against Messrs. Ramdeo Rang Lal. Messrs. Ramdeo Rang Lal had a preliminary mortgage decree which they had obtained in Suit No. 187 of 1925. The appellant attached it and applied for the preparation of final decree. The lower Court has dismissed the application on the ground that he had no locus standi to apply for the preparation of a final decree. 'We think the learned Subordinate Judge was quite right. The appellant purports to come under Order 21, Rule 53, Civil P.C. It does not apply to the present case. Rule 53, Order 21, Clause (1), applies to the case of a decree which is either for the payment of money or for sale in enforcement of a mortgage or charge. The preliminary decree does not come under this clause. The preliminary decree which has been attached cannot be regarded as one for the payment of money o...
Bageshari Tewari Vs. Nandoo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All32; 166Ind.Cas.473
Bajpai, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The suit has been dismissed by the Courts below on the ground that it is barred by limitation. It is necessary at this stage to state the relevant portions of the mortgage deed. It was executed on Kuar Badi 15, Sambat 1926, corresponding to 5th October 1869; the mortgage money was Rs. 12. The property covered by the mortgage comprised an area of 1 bigha kham. The mortgagee was put in possession of the mortgaged property and given the right to cultivate the field himself or get it cultivated by others. He was to pay Rs. 1-9-0 on account of the rent of the field and was given the right to appropriate the profits in lieu of interest. It then provided that when the mortgagor repaid the sum of Rs. 12 in the month of any Jeth within ten years the field would be redeemed. The words in the vernacular are:Jab Jethi Jethi andar das baras ke rupiya barah de den tab khet chhora len.2. If the field was not redeemed wi...
Mt. Mukundi Vs. Jagannath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All42; 166Ind.Cas.436
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by her against the defendants-respondents for recovery of arrears of maintenance on the basis of an agreement dated 23rd January 1925 executed by Amir Singh, father of defendants 1, 2 and 3, since deceased, Chandra Bhan, defendant 4, and Badri Prasad, defendant 5, and two other persons Ram Sarup and Hardeo Sahai who are not parties to the suit. The defendants contested the suit on several grounds, one of which was that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the arrears of maintenance at the rate fixed under the deed as the income of the property which was in their possession had fallen. Both the Courts below have found in favour of the defendants on this point. They have found that the income of the property has gone down by 25 per cent. Taking this fact into consideration as well as the cheaper rates, both the Courts below have reduced the amount of the plaintiff's maintenance by 25 per cent. The plainti...
Ram Manohar and ors. Vs. Baboo Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All124
ORDER1. (19/20th August 1936) - This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for joint possession. The plaintiff is Babu Singh, a nephew of Daulat, and the defendants are also nephews of Daulat, though they are the sons of another brother of Daulat. It is not mow disputed that Daulat became the owner of the tank in dispute. It cannot also be denied, and has not been denied, that both the plaintiff Babu Ram and the defendants being nephews of Daulat succeeded to the tank after his death in equal shares as collaterals. The defendants' case rests entirely on the plea of limitation. In the written statement it was certainly asserted that the defendants and their predecessors had been in adverse possession at the4ime for a long time. But the Courts below did not record a distinct finding that there was actually adverse possession for over 12 years against the plaintiff. All that the finding recorded by the trial Court came to, was that the defendants had been in exclusive possession o...
W.T. Henley's Telegraph Works Co. Ltd. Vs. Gorakhpur Electric Supply C ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All840; 166Ind.Cas.238
ORDERIqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an application for the compulsory winding-up of the Gorakhpur Electric Supply Company Limited. The application purports to be an application under Section 162(5), Companies Act, and has been presented by W. T. Henley's Telegraph Works Company, Limited hereinafter referred to as the petitioner. The petition is based on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts. It was filed so far back as on 31st August, 1934, and the delay in the disposal of the petition has been mainly due to promises being held out, from time to time, by Mr. P. L. Jaitly, the managing agent of the company, that the amount due to the petitioner will be paid at an early date. On this assurance adjournments were prayed for and obtained on various dates. but in the end it was stated that the amount due to the' petitioner could not be paid. In the meantime Mr. Jaitly had been examined in part but his evidence was not concluded. He then avoided attending the Court on the pretext ...
Firm Ugar Sen-parsotam Das Vs. Chamber of Commerce
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All432
ORDERIqbal Ahmad, J.1. On 10th December 1935 an application was filed by the Hapur Chamber of Commerce under Section 12, Companies Act, for the confirmation of certain alterations in the memorandum of association of the Chamber. By my order dated 13th December 1935, I directed that the application be advertised in two consecutive issues of the 'Hindustan Times' and two consecutive issues of the 'Pioneer' and also in two consecutive issues of some Hindi newspaper of Meerut and the application was duly advertised accordingly. No objections were taken to the application and I, by my order dated 28th February 1936, allowed the application and confirmed the proposed alterations. Then on 18th April 1936, the present application, which is for disposal before me, was filed by the firm Ugar Sen Parsotam Das, which firm is one of the members of the Chamber of Commerce, Hapur, praying that the order confirming the alterations be set aside, and the applicant be permitted to file objections to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›