Allahabad Court August 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.
Jai Dayal Pearey Lal Vs. Chunni Lal Parsotam Dass and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All359
Sankar Saran, J.1. This is a revision against an order by the Civil Judge of Kanpur reversing the decree of the trial Court and remanding the case to the Court below for ordering an award to be filed and for making it the rule of the Court.2. The plaintiff-applicant Jai Dayal Pearey Lal and the defendant opposite party Chunni Lal Parsotam Das are two firms, members of the Kanpur Sugar Merchants' Association here-after to be referred to as the Association. There was a dispute between the parties and according to the rules and bye-laws of the Association it was referred to arbitration. On 7th May 1941 one Ram Sahai was appointed the sole arbitrator by the parties and he accepted that office. Earn Sahai could not, however, finish the work of arbitration. On 2nd September 1943, the firm Chunni Lal Parsotam Das nominated one Charan Das as its arbitrator. On 3rd September 1943, the Secretary of the Association sent a notice to the applicant firm Jai Dayal Pearey Lal that Charan Das was appoi...
Shyam Lal Vs. Ranbir Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All386
Mustaq Ahmad, J.1.The first is a plaintiff's and the other a defendant's appeal against a decree of the Civil Judge of Jhansi in a suit for possession and mesne profits in respect of a complete village and a complete mahal in each of two other villages. The plaintiff set forth a pedigree in the plaint, the correctness of which is now admitted by the defendant. Referring to that pedigree we find that Suraj Prasad was the maternal ancestor of the plaintiff who died in 1898. After him his son Ram Charan Lal died in 1901 and then died Ram Charan Lal's son, Budh Singh, in 1924, leaving a widow Mt. Kashmiri. Ram Charan Lal's brother, Kanhaiya Lal, died in 1930, and after him, the said Mt. Kashmiri on 27-8-1911.2. The plaintiff, as would be seen, is a son of the sister of Ram Charan Lal and Kanhaiya Lal, sons of Suraj Prasad, the ancestor aforesaid.3. The plaintiff's case was that Kanhaiya Lal and Ram Charan, the two brothers, were separate from each other, that he was entitled to the half sh...
Khangar Vs. Jhamman and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All734
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. Opposite party 1, Jhamman, instituted a complaint against the applicant Khangar and others under Section 145, Criminal P. C., alleging that he was a tenant on behalf of the Zemindar and that the opposite parties wanted to take forcible possession over the standing crops in his field. The learned Magistrate after, considering the evidence came to the conclusion that Jhamman was in fact in possession of the plot in dispute and was entitled to retain possession over it and made an order accordingly. Khangar went up to the Sessions Judge in revision and his revision application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Budaun. Be has now come to this Court in revision.2. The contention on behalf of the applicant is a technical one. It is said that the proceedings were not properly started by the learned Magistrate and that he had no jurisdiction to try the case. It is pointed out that he did not, when the case was instituted in his Court, make any prelimin...
Ramdeo Prasad Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All415
Agarwala, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order dismissing an appeal which was preferred against an order imposing a fine of Rs. 10/- under the provisions of Order 16, Rule 12, Civil P. C. The applicant was a witness in a case which was pending before the Munsif of Basti. He was served with a summons to appear as a witness on 25-2-1946. He did not appear on that date. The defendant whose witness he was, examined part of his evidence and' then applied for adjournment of the case because the applicant and another witness were not present on that date. The case was accordingly adjourned by the Court for the next date, i.e. 26-24946, and it was also ordered that these two witnesses should show cause for their absence on that date and as to why they should not be dealt with under Order 16, Rule 12, Civil P. C. No proclamation as mentioned in Rule 10 (2) or a warrant or an order for attachment as provided in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 were issued, as the defendant himself und...
Sahir HusaIn Khan Vs. Sirajul Haq
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All853
Agarwala, J.1. This is a plffs application in revision Under section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The deft, was a tenant of a house owned by the plff. on a rental of Rs. 10 per mensem. The plff. gave the deft, a notice to quit by a certain date & informed him that if he continued to occupy the house after that date, he would have to pay damages for use & occupation at the rate of Rs. 15 per month. The deft, did not reply nor vacated the house. Hence, the plff. sued the deft, for his ejectment & for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem & also demanded damages for use & occupation at the rate of Rs. 15 per mensem.2. The suit was decreed on 1-2-1945 for ejectment & for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem & also for damages at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem. After the decree the deft, vacated the house on 21-1-1946.3. The plff. brought the present suit for recovery of damages for use & occupation of the house for the period from 1-2-1945, to 21-1-1946, the date on wh...
Firm NaraIn Das Balak Ram Vs. Bhagwan Das Kedar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All860
P.L. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision, under Section. 115, Civil P. C. & it is directed against an order of the second Civil Judge of Kanpur passing a decree in terms of an award. The application has been filed by the Firm Narain Das Balak Ram, who will hereafter be referred to as the applicants, against the Firm Bhagwan Das Kedar Nath, who will hereafter be described as the opposite party. The facts, which have given rise to the application are these: On 1-6-1946, Messrs. Har Govind Agarwal and Rameshwar Das Darolia filed a petition, under Section 14, Arbitration Act, 1940, in the Court of Munsif, City Kanpur. In that petition, they stated that there were certain disputes between the parties, relating to certain transactions entered into by the Firm Bhagwan Das Kedar Nath -- a firm registered with the National Chamber of Commerce, Ltd., Kanpur, according to the rules and bye-laws of the Chamber -- for and on behalf of the applicants; and that the disputes were referre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›