Allahabad Court December 1949 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.
Ram Pratap Vs. Indrajit and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All320
Harish Chandra, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of his suit for the recovery of possession of a one-half portion of the property left by one Kedar Misra without payment of any sum or in the alternative, upon payment of such sum as may be found due by the Court. The suit was dismissed by the Munsiff and the lower appellate Court has also dismissed the appellant's appeal from the decree and judgment o the trial Court. He thus came to this Court in second appeal.2. The appeal was heard and decided as far back as 8th January 1942 by Collister, J. who allowed the appeal and setting aside the decree of the lower appellate Court directed that Court to proceed to determine whether the appellant was entitled to possession of the property in suit with or without payment of any redemption money. This decree was however, subsequently set aside on 13th May 1948 as it was found that one of the respondents, namely, Inderjit Misra was dead at the time when the second appeal was heard and...
Sham NaraIn Rai Vs. Nagesar Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All360
Wali Ullah, J. 1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against an order passed by the Court below by which his objections were partly allowed and partly dismissed.2. It appears that a simple money decree was passed against the appellant on 27-10-1930. An application for execution of this decree was made on 16-3-1933 and eventually it was struck off, after part satisfaction of the decree, on 30-8-1933. Later, the judgment-debtor appears to have made an application under Section 5, U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act (Act 37 of 1934) with the result that the decree was converted into one payable by four instalments. The first instalment was payable on 5-9-1937, the second on 5-9-1938, the third on 5-9-1939, and the fourth on 5-9-1940. It was provided that on default of payment of any two instalments, the whole amount due under the decree was to become payable. It appears that no instalments were paid till 16-12.1941 when the second application for execution was made. This second applica...
Girwar Singh Vs. Mathura Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All368
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. A simple money decree was passed against Mihi Lal and Mathura Prasad. Both of them are 'agriculturists' as defined in the U. P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940. In the execution of that decree Mihi Lal made an application for apportionment of the decree in accordance with the provisions of Section 11, U. P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940, Learned civil Judge allowed the application and apportioned the decree half and half between the two judgment-debtors. The decree-holder appeals against that order. Section 11 of the Act provides as follows :'In any proceeding relating to a loan due jointly from several persons any of whom is an agriculturist or a workman, the Court shall apportion the loan between the joint debtors and the provisions of this Act shall apply only to that part of the loan which is apportioned to the joint debtor who is an agriculturist or a workman.' Learned civil Judge has interpreted the words 'any of whom' as implying that the section applies even when ...
Rex Vs. Sadla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All418
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Sadla alias Jai Mangal, Sheo Chand, Ram Sia and Sheo Bodhan appeal against their convictions for rioting and for committing the murder of Lunja alias Sheo Mohan at 9 A. M. on 23rd November 1947, in village Kuchauli, which is seven miles from police station Kamasin, district Banda, where the first information report about the incident was lodged at 5-30 P. M. the same day.2. The prosecution has succeeded in proving that, due to old enmity, the four appellants, along with Sheo Sampat, who died subsequently, attacked Lunja and Ajudhia when they were returning from the river Began after having a bath there. Sadla and Sheo Chand appellants came from the other direction. Lunja and Ajudhia left the passage and proceeded towards Lunja's threshing-floor. The other three appellants lay in ambush nearby and incited Sadla and Sheo Chand to beat Ajudhia and Lunja, saying that they also were coming to their help. Sadla and Sheo Chand then rushed towards Lunja and Ajudhia. Sadla ...
General Secretary, Indian Press Allahabad Mazdoor Union Vs. Manager, I ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All308
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal by the General Secretary, Indian Press, Allahabad, Mazdoor Union against the order of the certifying officer, dated 2nd July 1949 by which certain annulments have been made to the standing orders in force in the Indian Press, Allahabad.2. The facts are that there arose a dispute between the management and the employees of the Indian Press. This dispute was referred to the Labour Commissioner by the Government on 30th April. 1949. The standing orders relating to this establishment were finalised by an order of the appellate authority on 8th March 1948 and this order was served on the parties on 22nd March 1948. In the meantime, an application had been made by the management of the Indian Press to the certifying officer for modification of the standing orders on 6th December 1948. The certifying officer passed an order thereon on 2nd July 1949 making certain amendments while the adjudication proceedings under the orders of the Government dated 30th April 1...
Ghulam HusaIn and anr. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All367
ORDERDesai, J. 1. The applicants were convicted by a Magistrate under Section 27, D. P. Shopa and Com-mercial Establishments Act, XXII [22] of 1947, for not closing their shop on three Thursdays in com-pliance with an order issued by the District Magistrate. Under Section 10 of the Act, every employer is bound to close his shop on one day of the week, known as the 'close day', the choice of the close day is of the employer though subject to the approval of such authority aa may be appointed in this behalf, and the employer is required to specify the close day in a notice permanently exhibited in the shop. Under the rules, the District Magistrate is the authority appointed to approve of close days. The case against the applicants is that the District Magistrate issued an order fixing Thursday as the close day and that the applicants failed to close their shop on three Thursdays. The reply of the applicants is that they were observing Friday as the close day and had closed their shop on ...
Kunwar Bahadur Singh Vs. Sheo Shankar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All327
Seth, J.1. The appellant in this case is the judgment-debtor. He objected to the execution of the decree against him, pleading that the application for execution was barred by limitation. This objection has been overruled by the lower Court although it was upheld by the Court of first instance. So the judgment-debtor has come up to this Court in second appeal, repeating the same objection.2. The decree sought to be executed was passed ex parte, on 4th November 1933. The defendant applied under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P C., to have it set aside. This application was dismissed on 30th October 1934, and the appeal from the order dismissing this application was itself dismissed on 30th January 1936. The first application for execution was made on 12th November 1941, and was dismissed for default, eight days later, on 20th November 1941. The second application for execution, which has resulted in this appeal, was made on 3rd October 1944. It would be in time under Article 182 (5), Limitatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›