Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-31-1969
Reported in : (1895)ILR17All438
Burkitt, J.1. In this case an application was made to Mr. Justice Banerji under Section 169 of the Indian Companies Act (Act No. VI of 1882) to grant an extension of time forgiving notice of an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Allahabad refusing an application under Section 214 of that Act. An extension of time for filing the appeal was also asked for. The learned Judge refused both applications being of opinion that no sufficient reason for granting them had been shown.2. This is an appeal brought under Section 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court against that order of refusal.3. Mr. Strachey for the respondent takes two preliminary objections against the hearing of the appeal. Firstly, he contends that no appeal lies, because, he says, the order under appeal is not a 'judgment' within the meaning of Section 10 of the Letters Patent, which gives a right of appeal from the judgment (not. being a sentence or order passed or made in any criminal trial), of no Judge of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-31-1969
Reported in : (1887)ILR9All617
Straight, J.1. In reference to this first appeal from Order No. 35 of 1887, Pandit Ajudhia Nath, on behalf of the respondents, objects to Mr. Amir-ud-din, who appears to support the appeal on behalf of Mr. Reid, who handed over his brief to him, on two grounds: first, that Mr. Reid, as an English barrister, had no power to take direct instructions from the appellant and file the appeal; and, secondly, that if he had such power, he had no power to hand over his brief to Mr. Amir-ud-din, and therefore the appeal ought to be dismissed in default of any person competent to act or to appear on behalf of the appellant having acted or appeared on his behalf. I refer these two points to the Court at large for determination.Mahmood, J.2. I agree.3. The Hon, Pandit Ajudhia Nath, for the respondents, in support of the objections.--I contend that an English barrister is not entitled to file an appeal, or to 'act' for his client in other similar ways. He is not entitled to do so by reason of a posi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-31-1969
Reported in : (1887)ILR9All625
Mahmood, J.1. The fact that Her Majesty has omitted for several years to fill up a vacancy does not alter the constitution of the Court or make it illegal; nor does it amount to altering Section 2 of the Letters Patent. If your argument is correct, supposing a Judge were to die, the whole working of the Court would be brought to a standstill until his successor could be appointed.2. To comply with the provisions of Section 2, the vacancy must be filled up within a reasonable time. Otherwise the executive could at pleasure alter the constitution of the Court, and even reduce the Court to a single Judge. This cannot have been intended. Section 7 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed when a vacancy occurs, but the powers given by the section have not been exercised. The vacancy now in question occurred in 1873.Tyrrell, J.3. Probably it was inconsequence of the transfer of jurisdiction in rent cases to the Board of Revenue. It was thought that this would greatly reduce the wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-31-1969
Reported in : (1895)ILR17All294
Banerji, J.1. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was brought by the respondents for the establishment of their right as reversioners to the estate of one Madho Singh, and for a declaration that the alleged adoption of the appellant by Madho Singh was void and ineffectual. One of the grounds on which the alleged adoption was impeached was that the appellant was the son of the sister of Madho Singh's mother. The Court below having held the adoption alleged by the appellant to be invalid, this appeal has been preferred, and the only question which we have to consider and. determine is whether the adoption of the mother's sister's son by a person belonging to one of the three regenerate classes is valid according to Hindu law. The parties are Thakurs, that is, members of the regenerate class of Kshatriyas. It is not alleged that an adoption such as has been set up in this case valid according to any special custom prevailing in the caste or in the locality to which the parties belong...
Tag this Judgment!