Allahabad Court August 1938 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 Lal Misir Vs. Jagdish Tiwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All591
Bennet, Ag. C.J.1. This is an execution second appeal by a decree-holder whose application for execution of his decree has been dismissed by both the lower Courts. The facts are as follows : On 21st February 1930 one Shyamanand executed a registered sale deed in favour of Bageshar who is the deceased father of the respondent Jagdish Tewari. Subsequently one Ram Lal brought a suit against Shyamanand as defendant 1 and Bageshar as defendant 2 claiming that six days prior to the sale deed, that is on 15th February 1930, Shyamanand had executed a written but unregistered agreement to sell the same-property to the plaintiff Ram Lal. Ram Lal sued for specific performance of his alleged agreement. The trial Court dis. missed the suit finding that Bageshar was a purchaser for value without notice from an ostensible owner under Section 41, T.P. Act. On appeal the lower Appellate Court reversed that finding. The decision turned on the question as to whether the Court should or should not believe...
Lala Shiam Lal Vs. Nawal Kishore and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All631
ORDERMisra, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order of the Judge, Small Cause Court of Aligarh, in a suit for contribution for costs. One Mohammad Zafar Husain Khan borrowed Rs. 47,000 on foot of a simple mortgage from the parties to this revision and their predecessors-in-interest. Rs. 42,000 were taken from Nawal Kishore, defendant, and Mt. Genda Kuer, deceased, predecessor, in-interest of Ram Kishore, defendant, and Rs. 5000 from Shiam Lal, plaintiff, and his deceased brother Gulab Rai. A suit was brought on this mortgage. A decree was passed on it and the mortgaged property was put to sale. Thereafter one Ruqya Begum with some others brought a declaratory suit claiming that half the mortgaged property was hers and was not liable to attachment and sale. The parties to this case were defendants in that suit for a declaration. The suit was eventually decreed and costs were awarded to Mt. Ruqya Begum and others from the defendants in that case. These costs were realiz...
Maheshwari Brothers Vs. Official Liquidators, Indra Sugar Works Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All574
ORDERHarries, J.1. This is an application by Messrs. Maheshwari Brothers under Section 183, Companies Act praying that this Court should set aside the decision of the Official Liquidators in which they held that the petitioners claim for the sum due under an agreement dated 2nd December 1934 was not trust money and that the applicants were merely ordinary creditors in respect of the same. The applicants Messrs. Maheshwari Brothers entered into an agreement on 2nd December 1934 with the Indra Sugar Works Ltd., which is now in liquidation. By that agreement the applicants were appointed the sole selling agents of the Company for the period of one year. It was a term of the agreement that the applicants should deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000 with the Company as security for the fulfilment of their obligations under the agreement and such money was to carry interest at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum and was to be refunded to the applicants at the date of the expiry of the agreement. Accordi...
Shri Gopal Chandra and anr. Vs. NaraIn Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All623
ORDERHarries, J.1. This is an application by B. Shri Gopal Chandra and L. Panna Lal praying that a Company known as the New Vaish and Paliwal Ginning and Cotton Press Co. Ltd., now in voluntary liquidation, should be compulsorily wound up. There is a further prayer that certain mortgagees should be ordered to deliver possession of the property of the Company to B. Shri Gopal Chandra who is the liquidator appointed in the voluntary liquidation. There is a third prayer that certain sale proceedings in the Court of the Munsif of Shikohabad in Suit No. 364 of 1936 be stayed pending the disposal of this application. When the matter came up before me on 4th August 1938, I gave Mr. Sanyal who appears for the applicants leave to amend his application and this has been done. The application as originally framed mentioned that it was one under various Sections including Section 221, Companies Act. This latter Section deals with powers of the Court to make an order that a voluntary winding up sha...
Badal and ors. Vs. Ram Bharosa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All649
Misra, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants in a suit for ejectment from a shop and for arrears of rent. The relevant facts are briefly as follows. By a qabuliat dated Kunwar Sudi 8 Sambat 1966 Bhunni, the predecessor.in-interest of the defendants appellants, took on lease shop No. 88 from Gokaran Bam, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs-respondents. The material terms of the qabuliat were (a) the period for which the shop was-taken was one year beginning from Miti Kunwar Sudi 10 Sambat 1966 = 24th October 1909, up to Miti Kunwar Sudi 10, Sambat 1967, which corresponded with 13th October 1910, (b) the rent was Rs. 10 a year, (c) the rent was to be paid month by month, (d) if the rent was not paid in any month, the lessor was given power to eject the lessee and to take possession of the shop and further to recover the rent of the whole year from the lessee and his representatives. On 1st August 1935, the representatives of the lessor brought the suit which has given ...
Fateh Singh and ors. Vs. Raghubir Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All577
Bennet, Ag. C.J.1. This is a Letters-Patent appeal brought by three plaintiffs whose suit was decreed by the two Courts below, but has been dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court. The plaint set out that Tilok Singh, (who was actually the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs), had received a mortgage with possession of a certain share of zamindari property. The date of this mortgage is not given, but in evidence it has been admitted by defendant 5, Dal Chand, that Tilok died some 40 or 45 years ago and the usufructuary mortgage in his favour by Durjan Singh must have been prior to that date. The plaintiffs further set out that Tilok Singh died and left two widows, Mt. Bilka Kuar and Mt. Gaura. On 23rd July 1907, Mt. Bilka Kuar executed a sale-deed in favour of Dal Chand, defendant 5, and Chandan, the father of defendants 1 to 4. This sale-deed was of one-half of the mortgagee rights which she owned jointly with the co-widow. The consideration was Rs. 250. Both widows and a...
Firm Ratanji Bhagwanji and Co. Vs. Prem Shanker
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All619
Misra, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant from the decision of the Sessions and Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, dismissing an appeal against the decision of the Munsif of Oawnpore in a case for recovery of a certain sum of money. The plaintiff Prem Shanker sued to recover Rupees 1600 including interest from the defendant-appellant on the allegation that one Jata Shanker, the working partner of the defendant firm, had borrowed from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1000 on 19th January 1932, and another sum of Rs. 100 on 3rd February 1932. The suit was filed on 11th November 1935, more than three years after these two loans were taken, but the plaintiff sought to save limitation by an acknowledgment in writing said to have been made by Jata Shanker on 30th November 1932. The defence in the case was that Jata Shanker had embezzled the money of the defendant firm and was removed from partnership in November 1932, and that Jata Shanker had no authority to borrow money on behalf of the d...
An Singh Vs. Bhagat Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All568
Misra, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant in a suit for damages for an alleged malicious prosecution. The defendant-appellant prosecuted the 15 plaintiffs, respondents in the Criminal Court on charges of criminal trespass, mischief and criminal, intimidation. The Criminal Court discharged the plaintiffs without framing a charge holding that the evidence produced by the complainant to substantiate his complaint did not justify the framing of a charge. Thereafter the plaintiffs brought a suit for damages against the defendant alleging, that the complaint had been lodged against them on account of enmity without any adequate cause. The defence was that the allegations in the complaint were true. The main issue framed by the trial Court of the Subordinate Judge, Pali, district Ranikhet, was in these terms, 'whether the defendant prosecuted the plaintiffs without reasonable or probable cause.' The plaintiffs examined themselves and produced six witnesses in support of their case ...
Kishan Lal Matrumal Vs. B.B. and C.i. Railway Company and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All561
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes in a suit brought by him for damages for shortage in the goods consigned by him to a Railway Company. The plain, tiff is the proprietor of a firm called Kishan Lal Matru Mai which owns an oil mill at Hathras. He loads tins of mustard oil in railway wagons at a siding in his own mill for being despatched to various places. In this case we are concerned with two consignments of 420 tins of oil each which he delivered to the B.B. & C.I. Railway Company at Hathras on two different dates, one on 15th August 1934 for being despatched to Narainganj and the other on 28th August 1934 for being despatched to Dacca. Each consignment occupied a four wheeler wagon of the B.B. & C.I. Railway Company. These consignments were accepted by the Railway under risk-note forms A and B. The acceptance of goods under these forms implied that owing to the bad condition and defective packing of the goods th...
Secretary of State Vs. Allahabad Bank Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All34
Harries, J.1. These are three connected appeals against a judgment of the learned District Judge of Cawnpore directing that three references under the Land Acquisition Act should be returned inasmuch as he had no jurisdiction to deal with them. The facts -which gave rise to this litigation may be shortly stated as follows: On 4th November 1933, the Government notified the owners of five bungalows situate at the Cantonments at Cawnpore that they were going to acquire the same. Bungalows Nos. 20 and 71 were owned by the Allahabad Bank, Ltd., who are the respondents in First Appeal No. 93 of 1935. Bungalow No. 43 was owned by Kali Charan and Jagannath who are respondents in First Appeal No. 94 of 1935. Bungalow No. 26 was owned by Kishori Lal who is the respondent in First Appeal No. 96 of 1935. The Government also notified their intention to acquire-No. 37 which was owned by Sital Prasad and others. Sital Prasad and others are respondents in another first appeal, namely First Appeal No. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »