Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-28-1951
Reported in : 1951CriLJ1497
Kapur, J.1. This is a rule directed against an order of conviction and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code2. In order to appreciate the different points in this case it is necessary to give in greater detail the facts of the case. On the 30th of October, 1939, Mangat Ral and his son Ishwar Chand accused sold by registered deed a house to Manohar Lal for a sum of Rs. 3,500/-. Rs. 600/- out of this were paid on the 28th of October as earnest money under a receipt Exh. P. E. and Rs. 2900/- were paid before the Registrar on the 30th of October 1939. The payment of money is shown in the endorsement Exh. P. A/1 and is to the following effect:Mangat Ral and Ishwar Chand * * * the vendors have heard and understood the contents of the document and have admitted the execution of the same. Manohar Lai son of Kanshi Ram, caste Mahajan, after counting the currency notes has paid Rs. 2,900/- in currency notes to the vendors....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-11-1951
Reported in : AIR1952P& H234
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by Mr. Chhaju Ram, Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, dismissing the objections filed by the appellant against an award given by Mr. Shiv Charan Singh arbitrator.2. On the 12th of August 1942, the Government of India asked for tenders for eyelets and the tender of Messrs. Shankar Dass-Rup Lal was accepted. Deliveries were to be made by them in three instalments, i.e., on the 30th of September 1942, 31st of October 1942, and 30th of November 1942. The contract between the parties contained an arbitration clause which is given as paragraph 20 of the conditions attached to the invitation for tender, Exhibit P. 23, and ft was in the following terms :'20. ARBITRATION: In the event of any question or dispute arising under these conditions or any special conditions if contract or in connection with this contract (except as to any matters the decision of which is specially provided for by these conditions) the same shall be referred to the aw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-16-1951
Reported in : AIR1952P& H224
Harnam Singh, J.1. Dr. Saif-ur-Rahman owned 60 ordinary shares of the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited, Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the Company.2. On the 23rd of November 1936, the Company registered the sixty shares mentioned above in favour of Mohammad Hussain defendant No. 1 on the basis of a deed, of transfer executed by Dr. Saif-ur-Rahman in favour of Mohammad Hussain defendant No. 1 on the 20th of November 1936.3. On the 30th of October 1944, Pida Hussain son of Rahmat Ullah instituted Civil Suit No. 202 of 1944 alleging that he was the owner of thirty shares under the Customary Law of Inheritance governing the parties and that the transfer of shares in question by Dr. Salf-ur-Rahman to favour of defendant No. 1 was under undue influence, coercion and fraud. In para. No. 2 of the plaint Fida Hussain pleaded that Dr. Saif-ur-Rahman did not sign the deed of transfer and that if it was proved that Saif-ur-Rahman signed the deed ot transfer the contract was void on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-02-1951
Reported in : AIR1952P& H43
Kapur, J.1. This is a revision against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge of Rohtak dismissing the appeal and affirming the decree of the trial Court which was passed after recording a compromise.2. On 19-7-1948, Des Raj and others brought a suit for partition of the land in dispute situate in village kiloi in Pana Maidan. As there were numerous defendants in the suit they applied under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C., and got four persons, Dharama, Suba, Charidar Bhan and Molar, made representatives for the defendants. On 24-8-1948, an application for compromise was made in the Court of the trial Judge and on behalf of the defendants Dharama, Suba and Molar thumb marked the compromise. On the same. day statements of the parties were recorded and again on behalf of the defendants, Dharama, Suba and Molar put down their thumb marks. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge thereupon passed an order recording the compromise and passed a preliminary decree fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-02-1951
Reported in : AIR1952P& H375
Falshaw, J.1. Indar Singh, Gurmej Singh and Teka Singh were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge at Ferozepore on. charges under Sections 302, 325 and 324 read with 34, Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that on the evening of the 31st of May 1949, in pursuance of their common intention they murdered Mst. Harnam Knur and Kartar Singh deceased and caused injuries to Sewa Singh, Puran Singh, Man Singh and Labh Singh P. Ws. It seems that there wag some delay in the trial owing to the fact that although Gurmej Singh and Indar Singh were arrested within a short time of time of the occurrence. Teka Singh remained absconding until February 1950. The result of the trial was that on the 5th of May 1950, all the accused were acquitted and the present appeal has been filed by the State against their acquittal.2. The prosecution story is that there was enmity between Indar Singh accused and the family to which the deceased and the injured P. Ws. belong. Sewa Singh P. W. is the father of Man Si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-04-1951
Reported in : AIR1952P& H132; [1952]22CompCas279(P& H)
ORDERHarnam Singh, J.1. This order disposes of Civil Original No 17 of 1951, Civil Miscellaneous No. 15 of 1951 and Civil Original No. 40 of 1951 in Civil Original No. 17 of 1951.2. Briefly summarised, the facts so tar as material, are these. On the 9th of March, 1951, Shri Kirpa Bam applied under Clause (vi) of Section 162 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the winding up of the Bharat Bank. Limited, Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the Bank.3. On the 16th of March, 1951, the Court ordered:'Notice to the Bharat Bank Limited and the Punjab National Bank Limited. Citations in the Government Gazette, the Tribune of Ambala and the Hindustan Times of Delhi.'4. On the 27th of March 1951, the Bank applied under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the petition under Section 162 of the Act may not be advertised in the Government Gazette, the Tribune of Ambala and the Hindustan Times of Delhi.5. On the 28th of March, 1951, Shri Harish Chandra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-04-1951
Reported in : AIR1952P& H380
ORDERKapur, J. 1. This is a rule against a judgment and decree of Mr. Mani Ram Khanna, Small Cause Court Judge, Amritsar, holding that the breach of the contract was by the plaintiff and dismissing the suit for the recovery of earnest money.2. On the 22nd of January 1947, the plaintiff, Ruldu Ram agreed to purchase some property consisting of a shop, a staircase, a half share in a house and a khola for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 500/- were paid as earnest money. The sale was to be completed by the 7th of March 1947. This being a contract for sale of immovable property, the time was not the essence of the contract. On the 6th of March 1947, the shop was burnt down in communal riots.3. The plaintiff brought the suit on the 21st of June 1950 i.e., three years after the date of the contract for the recovery of Rs. 500/- which he had paid as earnest money. The learned Judge has held that the breach was by the plaintiff.4. Mr. Indar Singh Karwal submits that the property had been destroye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-24-1951
Reported in : AIR1952P& H1
Harnam Singh, J. 1. On the 28th February, 1951, Ebrahim Aboobakar and Hawabai Aboobaker applied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that a writ of 'certiorari' should issue to the Custodian-General, Evacuee Property, Delhi, to bring up, in order to be Quashed, the order pronounced by him on the 15th of May, 1950, in proceedings under Section 24 read with Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, and that writs of prohibition and 'mandamus' should issue to the Custodian-General forbidding him from proceeding with the hearing of appeal pursuant to that order.2. Briefly summarised, the facts of the case, so far as material, are these. On the 16th of December, 1949, the Additional Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bombay, hereinafter referred to as the Additional Custodian, gave notice under Section 7 of the Ordinance to Aboobakar Abdulrehman calling upon him to show cause why his right, title and interest in the Im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-24-1951
Reported in : AIR1952P& H67
ORDERKapur, J.1. This is a defendant's revision against an appellate order of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, allowing the appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge whereby he refused to pass a judgment in accordance with the award. 2. On the 21st of May 1946, Hira Lal, husband of Khela Wati, is alleged to have made a will by which he left the whole of his estate to a relation of his Chet Ram. Hira Lal belonged to village Jagat Sukh which has a Co-operative Society called 'The Anjuman Imdad Bahmi Salsi, Jagat Sukh Limited, of which it is claimed all the inhabitants to the village are members. In accordance with the rules of this Society the question, whether a will had been made by Hira Lal, or not and whether it was genuine or otherwise, was referred to arbitration. The arbitrators gave an award that the will was not proved and dismissed the claim of Chet Ram. Under Rules 35 and 36 of the Society, which are alleged to have been made under Section 43 of the Co-operati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-25-1951
Reported in : AIR1952P& H364
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Mr. Ram Lal, Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Hoshiarpur, dated the 2nd of May 1950, setting aside the award made by Kanshi Ram, the arbitrator.2. By an agreement dated the 13th of September 1948, Exhibit P. 1, Kanshi Ram, a very close relative, was appointed an arbitrator by Mehr Chand, the father, Dina Nath and Magan Nath sons of Mehr Chand and Sham Devi, widow of a pre-deceased son, Jagan Nath, to arbitrate on the disputes which had arisen between the parties in regard to urban property in the District of Hoshiarpur which was the joint family property of the parties. It was there provided that Kanshi Ram had been appointed the arbitrator and he was given the power to decide in any manner that he liked in regard to the sakni or urban property of the joint Hindu family of the parties. The parties also undertook that the decision so given will be binding on them and that from the date of the agreement the joint Hindu family will be conside...
Tag this Judgment!