Allahabad Court February 1937 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.
Ram NaraIn Garg Vs. Improvement Trust and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All528
ORDER1. This is a civil revision by a plaintiff against an order of the learned District Judge of Cawnpore passed on an appeal from the interim injunction of a Munsif. The applicant brought a suit for an injunction in the Court of the Munsif claiming a perpetual injunction restraining the Improvement Trust of Cawnpore from allowing two persons, the other two defendants, to take part in the meeting of the Improvement Trust, on the ground that these persons were not properly elected, and that the plaintiff had been properly re-elected in December 1934, for a term of three years. The Munsif granted a temporary injunction under Order 39, and learned Counsel for the applicant states that this was under Order 39, Rule 2. Pending the disposal of that interim in. junction, the defendants made an appeal to the District Judge, and on 17th February 1936, the District Judge passed the following order:Let notice issue to the opposite party in the meanwhile, and pending the hearing of objection by t...
Zahid HusaIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All421
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. Criminal Revisions Nos. 985, 986 and 987 of 1936 have been heard and disposed of with this Criminal Revision (No. 984 of 1936). These are applications in revision against the conviction and sentence of the applicant under Rule 12(1)(h), U.P. Sugarcane Rules. In all the cases the same point of law arises. Under Rule 9(1) all payments for cane purchased for a sugar factory shall be made at the purchasing centre within 24 hours of demand; provided that in the case of purchases made at such purchasing centres (other than the sugar factory premises) as may be approved by the District Magistrate, payments shall be made within seven days of demand. Under Rule 12(1)(h), a licensed purchasing agent or any person acting on his behalf who fails to make payments for cane purchased for a sugar factory in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9(1) becomes liable for punishment with a fine which may extend to Rs. 500. The applicant has been charged in all these oases with not m...
Dewan Syed Aley Rasul Vs. Seth Balkishan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All446
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Ajmer Regulation 1 of 1877. Before we state the precise question referred to this Court, the previous history of the case which has given rise to it should be stated. By a deed, dated 22nd January 1912, Dewan Immamuddin, a former 'sajjadanashin' of the Ajmer Dargah, hypothecated a number of properties, including a 'jagir', income from the shrine, a 'haveli' and a 'nohra', also called a 'bagh', to secure the advance of a certain sum of money. The original mortgagor died, and was succeeded by Dewan Sharfuddin, against whom a suit for sale of the mortgaged properties was brought by the mortgagee. A preliminary decree was passed in the usual terms. On 28th September 1920, the Court recorded an order directing the preparation of a final decree. It is common ground that no-final decree is traceable. It may be that no such decree was ever prepared through an oversight on the part of the office or that one was prepared but has been lost. Shar...
Randhir Singh and anr. Vs. Randhir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All665
1. This is an appeal by the defendants vendees arising out of a suit for pre-emption brought on the basis of a sale deed dated 11th December 1929 executed by Chatur Singh and Tileshar Singh, defendants 1 and 2, in favour of Randhir Singh and Dasrath Singh, defendants 3 and 4. Defendants 5-7 have also been inpleaded on the allegation that they are members of a joint Hindu family with the vendees and are interested in this transaction. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that in addition to this sale deed a fictitious document purporting to be a dead of exchange was also executed, but the entire property had been sold to the defendants and the vendors were not in possession of the property which they had purported to transfer under the deed of exchange and the plaintiff alleged that the said document did not confer an indefeasible right on the vendees because it was liable to be set aside by the other members of the joint family. The plain, tiff claimed preemption of the entire property ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›