Allahabad Court August 1948 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.
Ratan Lal and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All222
ORDERBind Basni Prasad, J.1. The five applicants were tried and convicted by a learned Magistrate of Naini Tal for an offence under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 81, Defence of India Rules, read with Clause 3, U.P. Food Grains Price Control Order, 1945. Four of them namely Ratan Lal, Khunni Lal, Saligram and Ramrichhpal, who are partners of the firm of Kishan Lal Ratan Lal of Haldwani, were sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1000 each. Raghunath Prasad, who is a Munim of that firm, was sentenced only to a rigorous imprisonment of 3 months. There was an appeal and it appears from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge that the case was argued at great length on merits as well as on law points. The arguments took one full day before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, however, did not enter into the merits of the case. He only dealt with one law point, namely, whether in view of the provisions of Rule 130 (4), Defence of India Rules, the ...
Panchoo Jolaha Vs. Mohammad Ismail and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All263
Seth, J.1. This is a judgment-debtors' appeal. The necessary facts to bring out the point for decision are as follows:2. The decree was for possession of a piece of land. It appears that there was a cattle-shed standing upon the piece of land of which possession had been ordered to be delivered. The decree-holder put the decree into execution and applied for possession of this piece of land to be delivered to him. In the course of the execution, the cattle-shed was also demolished and the decree-holder was given possession over the vacant land. The judgment-debtors applied to the Court complaining against the conduct of those responsible for execution on the ground that the decree did not provide for the demolition of the cattle-shed, and that the judgment-debtors have suffered a loss by the demolition of the cattle shed in the course of the execution. They accordingly claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them by having been deprived of the materials of the cattle-shed. The cl...
Munney Khan and anr. Vs. Mohammad Bakhsh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All735
Kaul, J.1. This is a defendants' second appeal against an appellate order of the District Judge of Sitapur by which a decree passed by the Munsif, Sitapur, in a suit under Section 33, Agriculturists' Relief Act, was modified.2. The material facts lie within a short compass : On 19th April 1936, the present respondent, Mohammad Bakhsh, executed a deed of usufructuary mortgage in favour of Munney Khan and Abdul Rauf Khan. As it was a usufructuary mortgage, no rate of interest was specified in the deed, and the profits of the land mortgaged were to be appropriated by the mortgagees in lieu of interest. The mortgage was given for a period of five years. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted by Mohammad Bakhsh in the Court of the Munsif, Sitapur, under Section 83, Agriculturists Relief Act, for an account of the money due under the mortgage. A number of pleas were raised. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiff was that inasmuch as the mortgagees were ...
The Allahabad theatres Ltd. Vs. Ram Sajiwan Misra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All730
Harish Chandra, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought - by him against the respondent for arrears of rent and ejectment with respect to the building known as 'Jawahir Palace' situate in Mohalla Mirganj in the city of Allahabad. The plaintiff is a company known as the Allahabad Theatres, Limited and is the owner of the building in question, It had given a lease of that building to the respondent, Ram Sajiwan Misra. The suit was decreed ex parte on 18th May 1948, and possession was delivered in pursuance of the decree to the appellant on 7th July 1948. There is some dispute as to whether the possession that had been delivered was actual possession or merely formal possession. But we are not concerned with that matter at present. On 5th July 1948, however the respondent applied to the Court for the setting aside of the ex parte decree and the ex parte decree was set aside on 28th July 1948, on the respondent depositing into Court a sum of Rs. 9,288-13-0 represent...
Tafazzul and ors. Vs. Shah Mohammad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All261
ORDERSeth, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., against an order of the City Munsif of Azamgarh penalising the plaintiff by dismissing his suit because he failed to carry out the order of the Court directing him to file certain documents within the period prescribed by that Court. On 28 November 1946, the plaintiff was ordered to file a mukhtarnama-am within ten days of that day. The mukhtarnama-am was not filed within the time specified by the Court and on 10th December 1946, the Court made the following order which is the subject-matter of this revision : 'Papers not filed by plaintiff. Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to opposite party as it is 4-30 P.M.'2. The explanation put forward by the plaintiff for the non-production of the document is that the information of this order was communicated to his pleader's clerk and the pleader's clerk failed to communicate this information to the plaintiff.3. A preliminary objection ...
Aman-o-aman Bank Ltd. Vs. Chandra Bali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All330
ORDERSeth, J.1. These two applications in revision are connected together and shall be governed by the same judgment. The applicant in both the cases is the same, namely, the Aman-O-Aman Bank Ltd., Gorakhpur, herein referred to as the Bank. The Bank obtained a decree against eight persons, two of whom have died leaving as their legal representatives some of the remaining six. Thus there are at present six judgment-debtors to the decree. Two applications for apportionment of liability under Section 11, U.P. Debt Redemption Act, were made by the judgment-debtors. They were disposed of by the same order apportioning the liability between the judgment-debtors.' The decree-holder having felt dissatisfied by the order of apportionment has come up in revision to this Court. Two revisions have been filed against the order disposing of two different applications though for the same relief.2. It is an admitted fact that all the judgment-dehtors are agriculturists. The contention on behalf of the...
Khatirzaman Khan Vs. Mohd. Zafar Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All255
Kaul, J.1. This is a second rent appeal preferred by one of the defendants in the trial Court against an appellate decision of the learned Civil Judge of Sultanpur.2. The material facts are as follows : A suit was brought by Mirza Bahadur Mohammed Zafar Khan against 13 defendants for recovery of under-proprietary rent due for the years, 1346, 1347, and 1348 F. The sum claimed was Rs. 407-4-9. A written statement was filed by some of the defendants, but it appears that they failed to appear on the date fixed for hearing, and a decree for Rs. 375-14-9 with costs and interest was passed ex parte against all the defendants on 20th June 1942. There was, however, a provision contained in the decree that the liability of each defendant was limited to l/l3th of the sum decreed. One of the defendants to the suit, Khaliq Bahadur Khan, defendant 10, was a minor. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree was made on his behalf on 26th July 1942. This was allowed, and the ex parte decree...
Ram Sarup and anr. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All218; 1949CriLJ327
ORDERChandiramani, J.1. The applicants Ram Sarup and Ram Shiroman were convicted by a Magistrate, First Class, Hardoi, under Section 14, U.P. Industrial Disputes (Second) Ordinance, No. 13 of 1947, and sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for one year. They went up in appeal to the learned Sessions Judge who maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for three months each.2. The prosecution case briefly was that there was a certain dispute between the Lakshmi Sugar Mills, Hardoi, and its employees. This was referred to the Conciliation Officer of the U.P. Government for adjudication, and the adjudicator gave his award on 27th November 1917. This award was enforced by an order of the Government, dated 18th January 1948, whereby the decisions contained in the award were made binding on the company as well as on its employees and it was directed that no employee shall go on strike for two months from the date of the order. A copy of the order was duly s...
Hafizullah Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ123
ORDERBind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is a petition in revision by one Hafizullah who has been convicted under Clause (b) of Sub-section (5) of Section 27, U. P. Sugar Factories Control Act, 1938 (U. P. Act I [l] of 1938) for the contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (8) of Section 18 of the said Act. He has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200.2. Briefly the facts are that village Baithulia is an area which has been declared as reserved area under the provisions of Section 15 of the above Act 'for the purposes of the supply of cane to a particular sugar factory during a particular crushing season.' The accused is the manager of an open pan sugar factory-a factory whose does not come within the purview of the above Act-in village Karmahia. Section 18 (8) provides:Except with the permission of the Provincial Government, cane grown in a reserved area shall not be purchased by a purchasing agent, or by any person other than the occupier of the factory for which such area baa been rese...
Mangli Prasad Vs. Budh Sen and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All264; 1949CriLJ460
Wanchoo, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad recommending that the acquittal of Budh Sen, Brahmanand and Babu Ram, opposite parties, be set aside and that a re.trial be ordered. The prosecution ease was that the applicant, Mangli Prasad, was the own cousin of Budb Sen, opposite party. Bramha. nand opposite-party is the son of Budh Sen and Babu Ram opposite party is their 'relation, Mangli Frasad was childless and the opposite parties naturally expected that they would succeed him. Recently, however, Mangli Prasad got his tenancy partitioned and got the name of his Bister's son entered in his khata with the Consent of the zamindars, This annoyed the opposite, parties who felt that their right of sue-cession was jeopardised. Consequently they as-united Mangli Frasad on 27th December 1946, and caused him a number of injuries.2. Evidence was produced before the learo. ed Magistrate by be to the parties. Mangli Prasad does not complain that any part of his evidence...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »