Allahabad Court February 1950 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.
Mohammad Farooq Vs. Rex Through Tufail Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All501
ORDERDesai, J.1.This is an application in revision against an order of the Sessions Judge, Allahabad, upholding an order of a first class Magistrate lodging a complaint against the applicant under Section 193, Penal Code.2 In 1948, Abdul Hakim filed a complaint under Section 323, Penal Code against the applicant Mohammad Farooq and others. During its pendency, Abdul Hakim, the applicant and the other accused of that case executed an agreement, dated 6th May 1943, referring the dispute between them to Maulvi Tufail Ahmad for arbitration. The arbitrator heard the parties and gave a written award dated 18th May 1943. It is signed by Abdul Hakim, the applicant and the other accused of that case. The award was acted upon and Abdul Hakim got his complaint dismissed.3. In 1948 the police prosecuted the applicant and six others in a criminal Court. The applicant in reply instituted a complaint under Sections 147, 323, etc., Penal Code against Abdul Hakim, Tufail Ahmad and others. This Tufail A...
Kanhaiya Lal Bhargava and anr. Vs. Banshi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All444
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. The first of these three appeals was filed by a creditor and the other two were filed by non-applicant-debtors against orders passed in certain proceedings under the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act. These were orders on applications for injunction made by certain debtors who had not joined in the application under Section 4 of the Act. The circumstances in which those applications and orders were respectively made and passed would appear from the following.2. The Calcutta High Court in 1936 passed a decree No. 825 of that year, in favour of Pt. Kanhaiya Lal Bhargava and his son, the appellants in appeal No. 278 of 1948, jointly against about 45 persons, descendents of the same ancestor. There had been a suit for partition amongst those persons instituted in 1926 by some of them against the others, in which a preliminary decree was passed the following year and the final decree much later in 1939. In this partition suit, the various persons were arrayed as belonging to ...
State Vs. Badruddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All436
ORDER1. Badaruddin was convicted of offences Under Section 9 (a), Opium Act, and Under Section 60 (a), U. P. Excise Act. The conviction was upheld on appeal. He has come up to this Court in revision.2. The facts found by the Court below are that on the search of his house at 7 P. M. on 24th July 1948, a seer of opium, three-quarter seer of Bhang, about half chantank of Ganja and about 31/4 bottle full of liquor were recovered by Shri R. S. Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted the search in the presence of Shri Usman Ali, Station Officer, Excise Inspector and a few other persons, who were not examined as witnesses.3. The conviction Under Section 60 (a), U. P. Excise Act is bad as Under Section 70, U. P. Excise Act a Court cannot take cognizance of such an offence without the complaint or report of the Collector or an Excise Officer authorised by him in that behalf. This case was reported by the Station Officer and not by the Excise Officer, and therefore, the Magistrate...
Agra Province Zamindar Association Vs. Prem Mohan Verma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All447
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision against a decree of the Small Cause Court Judge, Allahabad. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 990 including Rs. 90 as interest as arrears of counsel's fee.2. The plaintiff, opposite party, who is an advocate of this Court, was instructed by the applicant to file a suit against the U. P. Government in the name of one Sheikh Mohammad Zia, a zamindar, to challenge the validity of the U. P. Tenancy Act XVII [17] of 1939.3. A suit was accordingly filed, and it was registered as Suit No. 22 of 1940 of the Court of the Civil Judge, Allahabad. Some time later a motion was made to this Court by the plaintiff, U. P. Zamindar Association, to transfer the suit from the file of the Civil Judge to this Court on its original side. On transfer, the suit was registered in this Court as Suit No. 1 of 1940. On 22nd August 1941, the defendant, U. P. Government, filed its defence. Eventually the suit was-decreed by the High Court on 24th Augu...
Karim Bux Vs. Rex Through Karimullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All464
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J.1. There is an open piece of land between the houses of Karim Bux applicant and Karimullah, complainant. In 1948 the applicant stored earth and other materials on this open land. When heavy rains came, water appears to have accumulated there and to have caused damage to the wall of Karimullah, with the result that a portion of the wall fell down. It is in evidence, which is believed by the Courts below, that Karimullah asked the applicant to remove the materials, and that the applicant promised to remove but did not remove. On this fact the applicant was convicted under Section 427, Penal Code, His conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge. He has, therefore, come to this Court in revision.2. I am of opinion that on the facts found, no offence under Section 427, Penal Code is made out. Section 425, Penal Code is :'Whoever, with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction ...
State Vs. Kashi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All486
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This is a Government appeal against the order of Shri Laxmi Kant, Judicial Magistrate, first class, Kanpur, dated 21st December 1948 in case No. 280 of 1948. It was filed on 29th October 1949. The office report shows that the appeal was beyond time by more than four months. It was put up before the Court on 4th November and the Court allowed two weeks for the filing of an application Under Section 5, Limitation Act, supported by an affidavit.2. On 16th November 1949 an application Under Section 5, Limitation Act, was filed and it was put up before this Court on 17th November 1949. The affidavit was filed by Shri A. M. Hajaila, Income-tax Officer, Kanpur. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are :'5. That the copies of the judgment were applied for on 8th January 1949 and issued on 21st May 1949 and it was an accidental slip in not mentioning the dates of applications for copies and their delivery on the back of the judgment.6. That on llth November 1949 Officer-in-Charge of copying ...
Ebadullah Khan Vs. Municipal Board and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All450
ORDERMushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is an application praying that I should recall by review my order dated 24th January 1949, allowing the revision filed by the opposite party. I have already mentioned the facts of the case in that order and they need not be repeated here.2. The main point argued by Mr. Walter Dutt then appearing for the auction-purchaser-opposite party, was that, in the absence of an application by the judgment-debtor under Order 21 Rule 90, Civil P. C., the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to set aside the sale. For the reasons given in the said order, I accepted this contention. The only point then argued by Mr. Gopalji Mehrotra, counsel for the judgment-debtor, was that the auction-purchaser had no right of appeal against the order of the Munsif to the learned Additional Civil Judge. No other point was argued either by the one or the other counsel, and none other is mentioned in that order. It is not suggested by the counsel for the judgment-debtor, now seeking review...
Shib Charan Lal Vs. Zalim Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All530
Desai, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Additional District Judge of Aligarh directing a decree passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent to be amended Under Section 9, Debt Redemption Act. The facts are as follows: In 1913 Mathura Prasad and others executed a mortgage of the whole of village Chandua in favour of Ganesh Singh (father of the respondent judgment debtors). In 1922 Dwarka, who belonged to the family of Mathura Prasad and was probably one of his heirs, executed a mortgage in favour of the appellant decree-holder Sheo Charan Lal in respect of a one-fourth share in the village and some other property with which we are not concerned. In 1925 Ganesh Singh put his mortgage into suit but without impleading Sheo Charan Lal as the puisne mortgagee, got a decree, put it into execution, got the entire village put to auction, himself purchased it in 1929, and obtained formal delivery of possession in the same year. On 29th April 1932, the appellant sued...
Pratap Bahadur Singh Vs. Dau Bahadur Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All581
ORDERKidwai, J. 1. Pratap Bahadur Singh instituted a case under Sections 379 & 426, I. P. C. against Dan Bahadur Singh & others in the Court of a Tahsildar Magistrate of Rae Bareli. Subsequently, Pratap Bahadur Singh applied to the Tahsildar Magistrate on 30-8-1949, praying that, as the case related to the price of wood worth Rs. 25 only, the case was triable by Panchaiti Adalat & should, according to Section 56, Panchayat Raj Act, be transferred to the Panchaiti Adalat of Benta Kalan. This application was opposed by the accused who alleged that the complainant himself was a Panch & that his witnesses too were panches or the Sarpanch of the said Adalat. They also gave other grounds for not transferring the case. The learned Tahsildar Magistrate considered that he could not transfer the case to that Panchaiti Adalat because that lay in Tahsil Dalmau while he had jurisdiction only in Tahsil Rae Bareli. He accordingly instructed the applicant to move the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dalmau ...
Bindeshwari Ahir and anr. Vs. Bishwanath Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All421
1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for specific performance of a contract to grant a lease of seven agricultural plots to the plaintiffs. The contract, according to the plaintiffs, had been entered into on 22nd September 1937, by the late Maharaja of Banaras, under which he agreed to grant this lease to the plaintiffs on certain terms which are mentioned in para. 3 of the plaint. These terms shortly were that the holding in Schedule A was to be leased to plaintiff 4 and the holding in Schedule B was to be leased to plaintiff's 1 to 3 these plaintiffs paying Rs. 1655/- to the Maharaja as nazrana. As a matter of fact, a similas amount was previously due to the Maharaja as arrears of rent from plaintiff 4 which the other plaintiffs 1 to 3, undertook to pay to him under the contract of lease. There was, according to the plaint allegation, a further understanding that the lease was to take effect from the beginning of the agricultural year following the contract in that behalf.2. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »