Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1921)ILR43All660
Lindsay, J.1. These two matters have been consolidated and heard together by a Full Bench in order to decide the legality and the scope of the rules which this High Court has made with reference to the necessity of filing with the memorandum of appeal in a second appeal, a copy of the first court's judgment.2. The facts of the two cases do not materially differ. In Bhairon Ghutam v. Ram Autar Singh, the lower appellate court's judgment, against which it is sought to appeal, was dated the 16th of July, 1920. The memorandum of appeal was presented to this Court on the 25th day of October, 1920, the first day on which the Court was open after the long vacation and the last day prescribed by law for presenting or preferring the appeal. It was accompanied by a copy of the decree and of the lower court's judgment but by no copy of the first court's judgment. The appellant had been supplied with this as long ago as the 20th of August, 1920, but he did not file it until the 16th of December, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1921All23; 63Ind.Cas.338
Walsh, J.1. These two matters have been consolidated and heard together by a Full Bench in order to decide the legality and the scope of the Rules which this High Court has made with reference to the necessity of filing, with the memorandum of appeal in a second appeal, a copy of the first Court's judgment.2. The facts of the two cases do not materially differ In Bhairon Ghulam v. Ram Autar Singh, the lower Appellate Court's judgment against which it is sought to appeal was dated the 16th July 1920. The memorandum of appeal was presented to this Court on the 25th day of October 1920, the first day on which the Court was open after the long vacation and the last day prescribed by law for presenting or preferring the appeal. It was accompanied by a copy of the decree and of the lower Court's judgment but by no copy of the first Court's judgment. The appellant had been supplied with this as long ago as the 20th August 1920, but he did not file it until 16th December 1920, when notice was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1922)ILR44All401
Gokul Prasad and Stuart, JJ.1. We have before us Criminal Reference No. 747 of 1921 from the Sessions Judge of Benares, and Criminal Revisions Nos. 16 and 17 of 1922. The same point arises in all: 'Has the High Court authority to expunge from the judgments of lower courts remarks reflecting unfavourably upon the credibility or the character of witnesses in cases in which the effective orders of the courts are not before the High Court either in appeal or on revision?' In the reference, the station-master of Benares Cantonment took exception to remarks reflecting upon himself made by a Magistrate at Benares in a judgment in a criminal case. In that case the accused persons were acquitted. The station-master appeared as a witness for the defence The Magistrate, while finding that the evidence did not justify a conviction, disbelieved the station-master in certain particulars. We have it that the learned Sessions Judge believed the station-master to be telling the truth--a circumstance wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 66Ind.Cas.1005
Stuart, J.1. We have before us Criminal Reference No. 743 of 1921 from the Sessions Judge of Banares and Criminal Revisions Nos. 16 and 17 of 1922. The same point arises in all:-' Has the High Court authority to expunge from the judgments of lower Courts remarks reflecting unfavourably upon the credibility or the character of witnesses in cases in which the effective orders of the Courts are not before the High Court either in appeal or on revision ?' In the Reference the station-master of Benares Cantonment took exception to remarks reflecting upon himself made by a Magistrate at Benares in a judgment in a criminal case. In that case the accused persons were acquitted. The station-master appeared as a witness for the defense. The Magistrate, while finding that the evidence did not justify a conviction, disbelieved the station-master in certain particulars. We have it that the learned Sessions Judge believed the station-master to be telling the truth-a circumstance which goes far to re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1924)ILR46All1
Pramada Charan Banerji, Acting C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax, under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, No. XI of 1922. The assessees, at whose instance the reference has been made, are a firm carrying on business at Hathras in the Aligarh district, under the style of the 'Lalla Mal Hardeo Das Cotton Spinning Company': they may be conveniently referred to hereafter as 'the objectors.'2. In the petition which led to the reference, they sought to raise sundry questions of detail in respect of which no reference had been made. The Commissioner's action in this respect has been perfectly correct. The Commissioner is required to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of any order made by him under Section 32 of the Act. The objectors are seeking' to raise questions not referred to in their petition of appeal to the Commissioner; obviously no reference can be made to the High Court on any such question.3. There remain tw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1924All137; 75Ind.Cas.329
1. This is a Reference by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, XI of 1922. The assessees, at whose instance the Reference has been made, are a firm carrying on business at Hathras, in the Aligarh District, under the style of the 'Lalla Mal Hardeo Das Cotton Spinning Company' they may be conveniently referred to hereafter as 'the objectors.'2. In the petition which led to the Reference, they sought to raise sundry questions of detail in respect of which no reference had been made. The Commissioner's action in this respect has been perfectly correct. The Commissioner is required to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of any order made by him under Section 32 of the Act. The objectors are seeking to raise questions not referred to in their petition of appeal to the Commissioner; obviously no reference can be made to the High Court on any such question.3. There remain two points set forth in the Reference. One of these is of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1924)ILR46All489
Walsh, J.1. Two questions are involved in this reference, The first is, whether the exemptions from attachment and sale in execution of a decree, contained in the proviso to Section 60 of the Code, apply to a mortgagee's decree for sale.2. I have had the advantage of studying the judgments of my two brothers. They fully cover the ground and it is not necessary to do so again. They differ fundamentally, and each judgment appears on the face of it to be unanswerable.3. On the one hand, the section distinctly prohibits the sale of this property in execution of a decree. On the other hand, as Mr. Justice Mukerji's judgment shows, there is much in the section which is inappropriate to a mortgagee's decree for sale.4. Where a section of an Act is capable of two renderings, or is said to mean less or more than it says, it is a maxim of interpretation that one must look at the scope and object of the enactment. For this purpose it is helpful to recall the history.5. The rights of a mortgagor h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1925All79; (1924)ILR46All637
1. This was a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession on the allegation that the plaintiff No. 1 is the reversionary heir of Kallu Misra, deceased, the last male owner of the property. Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 are transferees from plaintiff No. 1. In the plaint it was alleged that on the death of Kallu Misra, his widow, Musammat Mohini, entered into possession as a Hindu widow for her life, that she unlawfully made various transfers and ultimately died on the 15th of December, 1907. The suit as brought was just within limitation of this date as the Courts were closed on the 15th and 16th of December, 1919. The defendant No. 1 claimed to be the adopted son of Kallu Misra. The other defendants were transferees either from Musammat Mohini or from the defendant No. 1, who are now in possession of the bulk of the property in dispute.2. On behalf of the defendants there were several pleas taken. There was a denial of the pedigree set up by the plaintiffs. There was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1924)ILR46All787
Boys, J.1. This criminal revision No. 210, and the other criminal revisions Nos. 205, 206, 209 arid 211, deal with two incidents of satta gambling. The cases Nos. 206, 209, 210 and 211 are the cases of Tulsi Das, Lachmi Narain, Budha, Thakur Das and Nehal Chand. The case No. 205 is that of Ghisa, Pershadi, Manohar and Kallu.2. To deal now with the case No. 210, this man, Tulshi Das, was charged with a number of others with gambling in the satta form, i.e., with betting or taking bets on opium price figures, in a public place--an offence under Section 13 of the Gambling Act, III of 1867, as amended by the United Provinces Act I of 1917. The section, as amended, reads: 'any person found gaming in any public street, place or thoroughfare,' and by the same Acts 'gaming' includes 'wagering.' The nine men, whose cases are before me, were, in their respective two groups, charged in effect with being book makers, i.e. with keeping premises for the purposes of betting and themselves taking bets...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 82Ind.Cas.476
Boys, J.1. This Criminal Revision No. 210, and the other Criminal Revisions Nos. 205, 206, 209 and 211, deal with two incidents of satta gambling. The cases Nos. 206, 209, 210 and 211 are the cases of Tulshi Das, Lachmi Narain, Budha, Thakar Das and Nahal Chand. The case No. 205 is that of Ghisa, Pershadi, Manohar and Kallu.2. To deal now with the Case No. 210, this man, Tulshi Das was charged with a number of others with gambling in the satta form, i.e., with betting or taking bets on opium price figures in a public place--an offence under Section 13 of the Gambling Act III of 1867, as amended by the U.P. Act I of 1917. The section, as amended, reads: 'Any person found gambling in any public street, place or thoroughfare' and by the same Acts 'gaming' includes 'wagering'. The nine men, whose cases, are before me, were in their respective two groups, charged in effect with being book makers, i.e., with keeping premises for the purposes of betting and themselves taking bets therein. The...
Tag this Judgment!