Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1899)ILR21All29
Knox, J.1. In the suit which gave rise to this appeal the Delhi and London Bank, Ld., plaintiff (now appellant), laid a claim against one Chaudhri Partab Bhaskar alias Chaudhri Raj Kumar, for the recovery of Rs. 1,19,571-9-11, with interest, for an account of what sums might be due to them under a mortgage deed, dated the 17th December 1892, and, in default of payment of the sums found due, for sale of the properties covered by the aforesaid mortgage deed. The suit was instituted on the 27th day of June 1894.2. As the suit proceeded the plaintiff asked and obtained leave from time to time to add to the array of defendants (i) several persons who had purchased some of the villages covered by the deed on which the Bank had based their claim; (ii) several other persons who claimed a prior mortgage over certain of the same villages, and (iii) other persons whom, they considered representatives of defendants who had died during the progress of the suit, until at last the total number of def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3294(All)
Janardan Sahai, J.1. Akbar Ali Khan created a waqf-alal-aulad in respect of certain properties by a deed dated 26.7.1934. By the said deed Akbar Ali Khan appointed himself as the first Mutawalli. He died on 16.12.1958 leaving behind three sons Qasim Ali Khan, Kazim Ali Khan and Raza Ali. On his death the names of these sons was mutated as their bhumidari. Qasim Ali Khan became the Mutawalli after death of Akbar Ali under the terms of the waqf deed. Kazim Ali Khan who was a beneficiary of the waqf executed a sale deed of his 1/3 share on 14.10.1960 in favour of Mohammad Ahmad Ali Khan one of the sons of Raza Ali. Ahmad Ali was also a beneficiary of the waqf. A subsequent sale deed dated 26.9.1974 was executed by the Mutawalli Qasim Ali Khan of his 1/3 share to Ahmad Ali Khan another son of Raza Ali. This sale deed was therefore executed by the Mutawalli in favour of a beneficiary. Qasim Ali Khan was replaced by his son Sujat Ali as a Mutawalli after he had resigned or was removed some t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(4)AWC3152
O.P. Garg, J.1. The order dated 13th July. 2000, passed by Sri K.K. Tyagi, Special Judge/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mathura, directing the recounting of the votes on the application of, respondent No. 1 Smt. Imarta Saini in her Election Petition No. 66/95-96 has given rise to the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The wood-cut profile of the case is that the present writ petitioner Smt. Saroj was declared elected as Adhyaksh. Nagar Panchayat, Govardhan in district Mathura on 27th November. 1995. Smt. Imarta respondent No. 1 filed an election petition to challenge the election of the present petitioner primarily on the ground that the votes polled in favour of the election petitioner in respect of certain wards were illegally excluded from counting while the votes polled by certain other candidates were included for counting to declare the present petitioner Smt. Saroj as elected. It has been specifically pleaded in the election petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1936All3
Bennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the Small Cause Court on the ground that the suit was brought by an unregistered firm and that Section 1 and Section 69, Partnership Act (Act 9 of 1932) bar the suit. The plaint was headed 'Firm Danmal Parshotam Das, through Sidh Gopal, one of the owners of the said firm. Section 69(2) is as follows:No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless, the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of firms as partners in the firm.2. The argument for the applicant in revision is that Section 74 of the Act prevents Section 69(2) from applying to the present case, and therefore the present plaint is a valid plaint. In this connexion we may observe that Section 1(3) provides in regard to the Act:It shall come into force on 1st day of October 1932, except Section 69 which shall come...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1946All58
ORDERMalik, J.1. The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 261-5-0 on the basis of a bond dated 30th July 1931. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 165 and had agreed to pay the amount in three instalments of Rs. 55 each. The first instalment was to be paid on 25th January 1932. The bond provided that in default of payment of any instalment the whole amount, then remaining due, would become payable. No instalment was paid. The defendant had paid a sum of Rs. 10 on 24th July 1934 and another sum of Rs. 10 on 3rd July 1937. The first payment of Rs. 10 was entered on the back of the bond and it bore the defendant's thumb impression. The entry was as follows: 'To-day the 24th July 1934, received Rs. 10 towards the bond.'2. The defendant did not appear but the Court below held that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation as the cause of action to file the suit arose on 25th January 1932, the date of the first default, and the payment dated 24th J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1922)ILR44All71
Walsh and Wallach, JJ.1. This order cannot stand. The learned Judge has totally misconceived the position. The original application was by the insolvent complaining under the old Act, which is now repealed, against an act of the receiver, The act of the receiver was an act attaching some very valuable property which the receiver in a very clear, closely reasoned, and strong report has come to the conclusion had been sold by the insolvent some three years before the insolvency, merely with intent to defraud and delay his creditors, or, as the receiver says, to hoodwink his creditors and save the property. The District Judge has held, rightly, that it does not come within any of the express provisions of the insolvency law, and he has gone on to hold, erroneously, that a transaction cannot be attacked, under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or under general provisions of the law, in the Insolvency Court. Here he is wrong. The Insolvency Court has to administer the law under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1922All196; 63Ind.Cas.601
1. This order cannot stand. The learned Judge has totally misconceived the position. The original application wag by the insolvent complaining, under the old Act which is now repealed against an Act of the Receiver. The act of the Receiver was an Act attaching some Very valuable property which the Receiver in a very clear closely reasoned, was strong report has come to the conclusion had been sold by the insolvent soma three years before the insolvency merely with intent to defraud and delay his creditors, or, as the Receiver says, to hood wink his creditors and save the property, The District Judge has held rightly that it does not some within any of the express provisions of the Insolvensly law and he has gone onto hold erroneously that a transaction cannot be attacked under the provisions of the Transfer of Properly Act or under the general provisions of the law in the Insolvency Court. Here he is wrong. The Insolvency Court has to administer the law under its own procedure and to d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1960All119
A.N. Mulla, J. 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 417(3) Cr. P. C. against an order of acquittal passed by Sri A. C. Bansal, Additional Sessions Judge Lucknow, acquitting the opposite party who was convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act 37 of 1954), by a Magistrate.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: Ram Autar, opposite party, was prosecuted by the Municipal Board, Lucknow, through its Medical Officer of Health for selling adulterated Alsi oil on 10-10-1955, to the Food Inspector Sri O. P.Mehrotra. The trial court found the charge proved against the opposite party and convicted him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 600/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The opposite party went up in appeal and the learned Additional Sessions judge came to the conclusion that there was no proper prosecution within the meaning of Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1997All44; (1996)3UPLBEC1691
ORDERU.P. Singh, J. (Majority view)1. Thequestion as framed for decision by the Full Bench is as follows:'Whether Section 16-G(3)(a) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is applicable to a recognised and Government aided minority institution which provides for taking of the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools in writing before discharging, removing or dismissing from service or reducing in rank or subjecting to any diminution in emoluments or terminating the service of a teacher of a recognised institution under the Act?'2. The necessary facts leading to making the reference to the Full Bench may be stated briefly. Sri Guru Nanak Deo Girls Inter College, Saharanpur is a minority institution. It is aided by the State Government. Smt. J. K. Kalra, the petitioner, was appointed as a teacher by the Committee of Management of Sri Guru Nanak Deo Inter College, Saharanpur on 8th July, 1954 and confirmed on the said post on 8th July, 1955. She was promoted as Principal of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1967All31; 1967CriLJ13
Satish Chandra, J.1. This revision along with its companion revisions have been heard together as they raise some common questions.2. The petitioners in these revisions have been convicted under Section 10 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The main question raised in these petitions is that the officer who signed the complaint was not competent to do so and as such the prosecution based on such a complaint was not maintainable.3. To appreciate the contention raised, it will be feasible to state few relevant facts. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 makes a specific provision with respect to cognizance and trial of the offences under that Act. The relevant and material provisions of Section 20 of this Act are that no prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by or with the written consent of the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government on the local authorit...
Tag this Judgment!