Allahabad Court September 1939 Judgments
Firm Mahadeo Prasad-vaidnath Prasad and anr. Vs. Firm Kunjilal Vidyara ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All81
Allsop, J.1. The plaintiffs in the suit which has given rise to this appeal were a Firm Kunji Lal Vidya Ram. The defendants were a Firm Mahadeo Prasad Vaid Nath Prasad, one of its partners, Parshotam Lal, and one Sewa Lal, son of Mahadeo Prasad, another partner. Mahadeo Prasad and Vaid Nath Prasad were themselves partners in the firm. The suit was one for the recovery of a sum of money which was decreed in part. The plaintiffs in the trial Court had asked that notices of the suit as against the firm should be served upon Parshotam Lal. Some of the partners were dissatisfied with the decision and appealed to the District Judge. The appeal was filed through a vakil or a pleader in the name of Messrs. Mahadeo Prasad Vaid Nath Prasad, sons of Parshottam Das, and Sewa Lal. The respondents were the plaintiffs, Kunji Lal Vidya Ram, and Parshotam Lal, who was apparently not willing to join in the appeal. The learned Judge found that the decree should be reduced by a sum of Rs. 156-8-0 but he r...
Tag this Judgment!Executive Officer, Municipal Board Vs. Harsaran Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All19
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut. It arises out of a case under Section 148, U.P. Municipalities Act, in which one Lala Harsaran Das was prosecuted upon a complaint made by the Municipal Board of Ghaziabad. It appears that up till the end of 1937 for a period of more than 12 years Lala Harsaran Das was himself a member of the Municipal Board of Ghaziabad and during this period on two occasions he was the Chairman of the Board for two years. The second occasion was in the years 1936-37. During this period it appears that a vote of non-confidence was moved against him. It is not quite clear from the record whether any motion of non-confidence was actually made with success or whether there was only an attempt on the part of some members to make such a motion. One thing is however clear that in this proceeding one Mr. Ramanuj Dayal took a prominent part and he ultimately became the Chairman of the Board some time early in the year 1938. The comp...
Tag this Judgment!Nandan Sahu and anr. Vs. Fateh Bahadur Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All104
Verma, J.1. The suit which had given rise to this appeal was filed by the appellants, along with three other persons, who have been impleaded as pro forma respondents to this appeal, against two sets of defendants, praying primarily for a money decree for Rs. 13,848 against defendant first party, Fateh Bahadur Singh, and alternatively, if the Court did not deem it fit to decree the suit against defendant first party, for a decree for the recovery of that amount against defendants second party. The Court below has dismissed the suit against both sets of defendants. Fateh Bahadur Singh, defendant first party, executed a deed of simple mortgage on 6th September 1909 in favour of the defendants second: party, or their predecessors-in-title, hypothecating shares in two villages, Karaili and Semra, in lieu of an advance of Rs. 399. About two years later, on 26th May 1911, Fateh Bahadur executed another deed of simple mortgage in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Ram Dihal Sahu, father of plai...
Tag this Judgment!Hans Hotz and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All5
ORDERMohammad Ismail, J.1. This is an application in revision directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Agra affirming an order of a Magistrate of the First Class of that district. On 14th November 1938 the Electrical Inspector to Government, U.P. made a complaint in the Court of the District Magistrate against the applicants Hans Hotz and Kishan Prasad on the ground that the applicants had committed a breach of Rule 48(1), Electricity Rules of 1937. According to the complaint accused 1, Mr. Hotz, was of Hotz's family and was seen instructing accused 2, Kishan Prasad, in respect of re-wiring of electric installation which Kishan Prasad was seen carrying out in Laurie Hotel. The District Magistrate initiated proceedings against the applicants and made over the case to a Magistrate subordinate to himself who upon a consideration of the evidence found the offence proved and convicted and sentenced the applicants to a fine of Re. 1 each. The applicants denied the charge an...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bhairo Dutt Bhandari, an Advocate
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All1
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. On the receipt of a complaint of one Prem Singh dated 23rd December 1937, about the alleged professional misconduct of Mr. Bhairo Dutt Bhandari, an advocate on the rolls of this Court and practising in the Courts at Ranikhet, this Court referred the case for inquiry to the Bar Council and the case was in due course enquired into by a tribunal of the council appointed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The charge framed by the Tribunal against the advocate was as follows:That you, Mr. Bhairo Datt Bhandari, an advocate on the rolls of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad while practising in the Courts of the Kumaun Division, subordinate to the said High Court,.have been for a considerable time past carrying on money-lending business which is against the rules governing professional etiquette and have thereby been guilty of professional misconduct.2. The advocate concerned filed a written statement in the course of which he admitted that during a period of ten years,...
Tag this Judgment!Murari Lal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All3
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Muzaffarnagar recommending that the conviction and sentence passed upon two persons Murari Lal and Meher Chand for having committed an offence under Section 17, U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act (Act 6 of 1912) should be set aside. The material facts of the case can briefly be stated as follows: Meher Chand is the munim and general manager of a firm styled Sarup Lal Mutsuddi Lal which carries on business at Muzaffarnagar. The firm is owned by Murari Lal who has a son named Bul Chand who was also prosecuted for the same offence but was acquitted by the learned trying Magistrate. It appears that Meher Chand obtained a licence for selling ghee on behalf of the firm. It is not contested that the licence which he so obtained related to a shop No. 94 and had nothing to do with any other building or shop No. 93. On 24th May 1938 the Health Officer of the Muzaffarnagar Municipal Board visited shop No. 94 and asked Meher Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Jaggo Bai Vs. Harihar Prasad Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All41
Thom C.J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit in which the plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs:(a) That the defendants be ordered to execute a deed of assignment of their mortgagee rights under the mortgage deed, dated 18th February 1921, executed by the late Bindeshwari Prasad in favour of the defendants on payment by the plaintiff of a sum of Rs. 23,000, the balance of the amount of sale consideration, or any other amount that the Court may be pleased to fix, and a decree in favour of the plaintiff be passed for the specific performance of the contract against the defendants. (b) That if, for any reason, in the opinion of the Court a decree for specific performance of contract cannot be passed, the defendants may be ordered to refund the sum of Rs. 29,000 with interest to the plaintiff, and a decree for a sum of Rs. 26,000 be passed against defendant 1 and for a sum of Rs. 3000 against defendant 2 with interest by way of compensation from the date of payment ...
Tag this Judgment!Baba Jagtanand Bramchari Vs. Barhmdeo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All68
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiff Baba Jagtanand Brahmchari whose suit has been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge of Gorakhpur. The suit as brought was in the first instance for a declaration that a number of sale deeds between 1893 and 1916 were not binding on the math and Mahadeoji installed in mauza Mathia Muafi in Gorakhpur district and the plaintiff might be put in possession of the property. Later, this relief was struck out and the relief asked was a simple decree for possession of the property in favour of the plaintiff. This point is of importance because the allegations for a suit asking for the first relief are materially different from the allegations in a suit asking for possession. The plaintiff headed his plaint by describing himself as 'disciple of Swami Lachchmi Charan, deceased, residing at the math at mauza Mathia Muafi.' It would appear therefore that he at first thought of claiming as a disciple or chela of one of the mahants, but that was not...
Tag this Judgment!Bibi Jannatun-nissa Begam Vs. Parshadi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All28
Allsop, J.1. This is a second appeal against an appellate order passed in execution proceedings by a Revenue Court. There is a preliminary objection that no appeal lies and I think this must be upheld. Under Section 264, Agra Tenancy Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply only if they are not inconsistent with anything in the Act. Now the Act defines a decree in Section 3(14) as any order which so far as the Revenue Court is concerned finally disposes of a suit. It follows that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure by which orders passed under Section 47 amount to decrees is not applicable to proceedings in the Revenue Courts under the Agra Tenancy Act. A special provision has been made in the Act under Section 248 for appeals from such orders, and it is to be noticed that these appeals are as against orders and not as against decrees. Now it is stated in Section 249 that no appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal. The result is that no appeal lies in ...
Tag this Judgment!Daulat Singh Vs. Emperor, Through Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All35
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur in a case under Section 299, U.P. Municipalities Act. One Daulat Singh was prosecuted for an offence under that Section upon a complaint made by the Municipal Board of Roorkee and was convicted by the trying Magistrate in a summary trial. He went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur and it was contended on his behalf that upon the admitted facts of the case his conviction under Section 299, Municipalities Act, was illegal. This contention has been accepted by the learned Judge and he has accordingly made this reference with the recommendation that the conviction should be set aside. Under Section 298, U.P. Municipalities Act, every Municipal Board is empowered to make bye-laws consistent with the Act and with any rules framed under the Act for the purpose of promoting or maintaining the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants of the Municipality. There is a list of model bye...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »