Allahabad Court October 1947 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.
Balku Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All237
Verma, J.1. This appeal was originally heard by a Bench consisting of Sankar Saran and Akbar Husain JJ. There was a difference of opinion between the Judges composing the Bench. Sankar Saran J. holding that the appeal be allowed and the conviction and sentence should be set aside and Akbar Husain J. expressing the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed and the conviction and sentence should be affirmed. The case was, therefore, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 429, Criminal P. C, (read with Clause 29 of the Letters Patent) laid before another Judge of this Court, viz. Mathur J. He has delivered the opinion that the appeal should be allowed, that the conviction and sentence of the appellant should be set aside and that he should be acquitted. All that remains now to be done is to pronounce, 'the judgment or order 'which under Section 429, Cr. P.C., has to' follow such opinion'. The case has been laid before this Bench for the delivery of this judgment and order.2. It may b...
Sridhar Achari and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All182
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. The applicants are connected with Rangji's temple at Bindraban in the district of Mathura. The High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1946, (Ordinance, 3[III] of 3946) was promulgated on 12th January 1946, and by Sub-para (2) of para. 6 of the Ordinance every owner of a high denomination bank note desiring to tender it for exchange was required to prepare in the form set out in the schedule three copies of a declaration signed by him giving in full the particulars required by that form and deliver them together with the high demomination bank note which he desired to exchange to a branch of the Reserve Bank or to a scheduled bank or to a Government Treasury. Copies of such forms were duly delivered by the applicants within the time fixed under the Ordinance. On 4th March 1947, however, a charge - sheet was submitted against them under Para. 7 of the Ordinance alleging that the applicants had knowingly made in the said declaration certain fals...
Hasan Banu Vs. Radha Kishan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All323
Sinha, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the District Judge of Kanpur. The facts of this case are somewhat complicated, but they have been stated with great clarity by Mr. Shambhu Nath Seth, the learned Counsel for the opposite party. They are briefly these. Two brothers, Mohammad Nazir and Mohammad Yasin, on 25-11-1932, purchased a plot of land from the Improvement Trust of Kanpur. They were not in a position to pay the entire purchase money. They paid a portion and undertook to pay the balance in twelve half-yearly instalments. It wag also provided that the plot o land with the constructions which might be raised on it, were to stand hypothecated by way of security. On 27-3-1933, Nazir sold his interest to Yasin with the result that the latter became the sole owner of the entire plot. Yasiu, thereafter, started certain construction on it and raised the funds by borrowing from one Lakshmi Narain. They made a mortgage in his favour of the plot together ...
Nasib Kohar Vs. Raghunath Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-1947
Reported in: AIR1949All111
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against an order of the learned Additional Civil Judge of Gorakhpur, directing the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court under Order 43, Rule 1, Civil P.C.2. The suit was brought under Section 33, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act (Act No. XXVII [27] of 1934), and along with the prayer for accounting, was a prayer for possession. The mortgage in respect of which the relief was claimed was for a sum of Rs. 99-15-0, granted by the plaintiff in favour of Jaddu Misir, the father of the defendant about twenty five years ago. The case of the plaintiff was that the entire mortgage money bad been discharged by the usufruct.3. Various defences were raised. Suffice it to say, that there was no plea that the suit was not cognisable by the civil Court. Nor was there a plea that the relief, in the terms in which it was couched, could not be granted by that Court.4. The learned Additional Munsif decreed the suit. On appeal, the learne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›