Allahabad Court January 1946 Judgments
L. Gillumal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All393
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Lala Gillumal who has been convicted of an offence under Section 13, U.P. Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1943, and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100.The applicant is admittedly a partner in the firm of Arjun Das Shankar Lal which deals in cloth. It is also admitted and found that he is a registered retailer. It appears that the shop was visited by one J.S. Singh, who is presumably an officer of the Supply. Department, and he found that certain copies of cash memos retained in the shop in accordance with the provisions of Section 6, U.P. Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1943, did not contain all the particulars which should have been mentioned therein. Section 6, U.P. Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1948, runs as follows:Every manufacturer, selling agent, wholesale dealer, commission agent and retailer shall, if the value of goods purchased is Rs. 10 or more in all oases and if the value of goods is less tha...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Bhagwati Vs. Sant Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All360
Pathak, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal from an order of the Civil Judge, Aligarh,. reversing an order of the Munsif of Kasganj by which a final decree under Order 84, Rule 5, Civil P.C., was directed to be prepared. The facts necessary for the purposes of this appeal may be stated as follows : On 2lst November 1936 a preliminary decree in a suit brought on the basis of a mortgage was passed in the following terms:It is ordered that the claim of the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 2140 with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of Rs. 3/4/- per cent, per annum, be decreed. The parties will receive from and pay to each other costs in proportion to their success and failure. Let a mortgage-decree for sale (digrikefalati) be prepared. The defendant shall pay the decretal amount by half yearly instalments of Rs. 310 each. The first instalment will fall due on 15th December 1936, the second instalment on 15th June 1937 and in future the defendant shall continue to pay accordingl...
Tag this Judgment!Bachia Mistri Vs. Shanti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All473
Braund, J.1. This is an appeal which raises a short but interesting point under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The only question raised by the appeal is whether the deceased man, whose name was Parma, was a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n), Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as subsequently amended. The facts are very short. The appellant Bachia is a Mistri who carries on a contractor's business. So far as this particular case is concerned, it is only relevant to notice that he had a contract to carry out the annual repair and whitewashing of the District Board Hospital at Almora. It is common ground that for the purpose of fulfilling this contract the workman Parma was engaged by Bachia for some ten or twelve days. We have little or no other evidence as to what the employment of Parma had been before or was after his engagement on this contract, except that one witness has said that 'He did not work continuously, but only as required,' while another witness has said tha...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Gopal and ors. Vs. Mt. Janak Dulari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All289
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal against an amended preliminary decree in a partition suit and arises under the following circumstances : One Annumal died leaving four sons and a widow as would appear from the following pedigree.(For pedigree see page 290.)2. Of the four sons of Annumal, Shiam Lai died first leaving a son named Sant Kumar and thereafter Earn Kishore died on 26th July 1937, leaving his widow Janak Dulari plaintiff-respondent and certain daughters. It is common ground that till the date of the death of Earn Kishore the family was a joint Hindu family. After the death of Earn Kishore, Janak Dulari filed a suit for partition on 15th September 1937, impleading Sri Gopal, Bharat Kishore, Mt. Daropdi, Sant Kumar and Earn Kali as defendants 1 to 5 respectively. Earn Kali was impleaded as a defendant simply because her name was entered as against some items of the property for her consolation and this fact is immaterial for the decision of the present appeal. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. N.G. Chatterji and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All416
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut by which he, in substance, affirmed the judgment of the learned Additional District Magistrate of Meerut. The facts in this case are highly complicated, but they have been presented before me with great lucidity by the learned Counsel for the parties. The story briefly is this : Dr. N.G. Chatterji and Mr. S.R. Chatterji are brothers. Mr. B. Mukerji is a cousin of theirs. Dr. N.G. Chatterji is the principal actor and for a proper and true appreciation of the case, it will be desirable to follow his career a little earlier than the stage which might be considered strictly necessary for following the prosecution story. He is a Doctor of Science of the Allahabad University and joined the Muir Central College in November 1919, as a Demonstrator. On 16th March 1921, he was taken over by the Department of Industries and appointed a Lecturer in the Cawnpore Harcourt Butler Technological...
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Vs. Mt. Ram Rati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All425
Verma, J.1. This revision petition originally came up for hearing before our brother Braund and, he having expressed the opinion that the case involved a question of law of sufficient importance to justify its being heard by a Bench, specially as there were decisions which appeared to lay down divergent views, the case has been laid before us. The facts are these: The opposite party, Mt. Ramrati, instituted a suit, No. 1182 of 1942, in the Court of Small Causes at Allahabad against one Bindeshri and his son, Bhola, for the recovery of a certain sum of money which she alleged was due to her on account of the rent of a certain house. The suit came up for hearing on 13th November 1942, and, the defendants being absent, it was decreed ex parte. On 20th April 1944, Bhola, who was defendant 2 in the suit, filed two applications in the Court of Small Causes. In one of these applications, No. 16C on the record, he stated that along with that application he was filing another application prayin...
Tag this Judgment!Udrej Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Bahal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All436
ORDERPathak, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115,. Civil P.C, against an order of the District Judge, Azamgarh, dated 2nd January 1913. The facts, which are admitted by the parties, are as follows: In the course of proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act initiated on an application under Section 4 of that Act made by the opposite parties to this revision, the learned Special Judge, Second Grade, on 18th. August 1941, passed an order on the objection filed by the applicants in this revision under Section 11 of that Act. By that order, the learned Special Judge extended the time for filing the objection on payment of Rs. 40 as costs within a week from that date and directed that in default of payment, the objection was to stand dismissed. On 25th August 1941 counsel for the parties made a statement before the learned Special Judge, to the effect that the question of the payment of costs might be postponed until the disposal of the appeal filed against the order, dated 18th Aug...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap NaraIn Vs. Ramdhan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All447
ORDERPathak, J.1. This is a defendant's application by way of revision under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, against a decree passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Bareilly. At one time, the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff in respect of a house of which the plaintiff was a possessory mortgagee. It is common ground that on 23rd June 1936, the tenancy was determined but the defendant remained in possession of the house in question from 24th April 1937 to 10th April 1938, without the assent of the plaintiff. The suit out of which this revision has arisen was brought for damages, for use and occupation of the house for this period and for interest thereon. Before the learned Judge in the Court below, the main plea raised in defence was that the suit was barred by limitation. This plea was repelled by the learned Judge and the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 400 in respect of the entire period mentioned above. Mr. Hari Prasad Gupta who has argued the case on behal...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Singh and ors. Vs. Damodar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1946
Reported in: 1949CriLJ257
Seth, J.1. The applicant in the case wa3 the defendant in the Court below in a suit for possession under S. D, Specific Relief Act. It has been found as a fact that the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendant on 6th July 1944, without his consent and otherwise than in due coarse of law. On these findings the suit has been decreed by the Court below. Before the institution of the suit and after dispossession, which took place on 6th July 1941, proceedings under Section 115, Criminal P. C, were started on a police report. These proceedings terminated on 21st December 1944, when it was found by the criminal Court that the defendant was in possession on the date of the preliminary order under Section 146, Criminal P. 0., and on that ground his possession over the property was to be maintained be long as he was not evicted therefrom by due process of law.2. The contention of the learned Counsel before me is that the due process of law mentioned in Section 145, Criminal P. C, should be c...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath Bhuj Vs. Ram Lal Agrahri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All431
ORDERPathak, J.1. This is a revision against an appellate order of the Additional District Judge of Basti by which he allowed redemption of certain mortgaged property modifying the order of the learned Additional Munsif of Bansi, who allowed the application under Section 12, U.P. Agriculturists' Belief Act, filed by the opposite party to this revision against the applicant. It appears that prior to the institution of this application under Section 12, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, the opposite party had filed, on an earlier occasion, another application under the same provision of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act which was decided on 8th May 1942. It further appears that the mortgagor did not make the necessary deposit within the time allowed by the Court and under the terms of the order of the Court, the said application was deemed to be dismissed. The only point argued before me by learned Counsel for the mortgagee applicant in support of this revision is that the previous deci...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »