Allahabad Court July 1944 Judgments
Parshotam Parshad Vs. Taimur Ali Shah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All39
Allsop, J.1. On 4th December 1925 Taimur Ali Shah and his wife and mother executed a deed of usufructuary mortgage in favour of the Hira Bullion Bank in order to secure a debt of Rs. 5000. The property mortgaged consisted of a house with the land appurtenant to it, an area of 22 big has odd in Khata No. 6/l/2, an area of 4 bighas 3 biswas in Khata No. 9 and an area of 6 bighas 4 biswas in Khata No. 11. Interest was to be paid on the sum of Rs. 5000 at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum and the mortgagors undertook to accept a theka of the mortgaged property at a rent Rs. 600 a year (equivalent to the interest) and to induce their tenants to enter into an agreement to pay this sum directly to the mortgagees. On 12th November 1937 Taimur Ali Shah alone executed an agreement to sell the two properties in Khatas 9 and 11 (which by that time had been renumbered 10 and 12 respectively) to Parshotam Parshad for Rs. 10,350. He acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 500 by way of earnest money and und...
Tag this Judgment!Roop Kishore Vs. United Provinces Government
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All24
Dar, J.1. This is an appeal against an order, dated 15th December 1942, of the Civil Judge of Moradabad by which he stayed proceedings in a suit pending before him under Section 34, Arbitration Act (10 of 1940). The plaintiff who is a contractor carrying on business at Moradabad made some contracts with the U.P. Government on the basis of which he raised an action in the Court of the Civil Judge of Moradabad for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8500 as money due to him for work done and for arrears of security and as damages. This claim was made in Court on 25th July 1942. Previous to the institution of the suit a notice under Section 80 had been served upon the Government. The plaint was filed on a deficient court-fee which was not made good till 27th August 1942. On that date summons was issued to the defendant which was served on the Government Pleader, Moradabad, on 7th September 1942. On 2nd October 1942, which was the date fixed for issues in the summons, an application was made on behal...
Tag this Judgment!Chhote Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All16
ORDERVerma, J.1. Mr. Jagdish Swarup argued this case with great earnestness, favour and zeal. The result was that the case was argued at much greater length than - as appeared ultimately-was warranted by its intrinsic merits. The applicant, Chhotey Lal, was convicted on 29th December 1943 by a Magistrate of the first class under Section 304A, Penal Code, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and to a fine of Rs. 200 or rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months in case of default in payment of fine. He went up in appeal to the Court of the Sessions and that Court on 5th February 1944 upheld the conviction and the substantive sentence of imprisonment hut set aside the sentence of fine and alternative sentence of imprisonment in case of default in the payment of the fine. He thereupon filed this petition for revision in this Court. As all the necessary papers were not supplied until 18th April 1944, the petition could not be moved earlier. It was adm...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Ishaq and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All60
ORDERVerma, J.1. This revision-petition has arisen out of an application filed on 13th December 1943, by one Mohammad Ibrahim in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dehradun praying that action be taken under Section 145, Criminal P.C. Having regard to the orders that have been passed by the Courts below, it appears to me necessary, before even stating the facts in detail, to reproduce those portions of Sub-section (1) of Section 145, Criminal P.C. which are material for the purposes of this case. They are as follows:Whenever a...Sub-Divisional Magistrate...is satisfied...that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water...within the local limits of his jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court...within a time to be fixed by such Magistrate, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects t...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Mumtaz-un-nissa Begum Vs. Sha Abu Sayeed and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All35
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal in proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act against an order rejecting the appellant's prayer for the restoration of her case to its original number, for permission to file her written statement and for the determination of her claim. The facts briefly are these : Shah Abu Saeed, a resident of the town of Behat in the district of Saharanpur, made an application under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act, on 27th July 1935. He mentioned four creditors, Bhagwan Das Bank, Amrit Lal, Shanker Lal and Inder Sen. He made no reference to the claim which is now set up by the appellant who admittedly is one of his wives. The written statement under Section 8 was filed on 25th November 1935, and on 28th December of the same year the necessary publication under Section 9 was made. The publication under Section 11 was made on 30th May 1936, and the case was finally decided on 3rd February 1937. Decrees were drawn up in favour of the creditors on 24th April 1937, and a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›