Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-23-1948
Reported in : AIR1949All367
Malik, C.J.1. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of my brothers Seth and Bhargava and after the full discussion of the question by them it is not necessary for me to say much. I have already indicated my views in my referring order. I agree with my brother Bhargava that a decree-holder can file an application for execution either in person or through a recognised agent or through a duly appointed pleader. My brother Seth has set out the various steps that have to be taken in the preparation of and in filing a plaint or a memorandum of appeal or an application. As he has pointed out, some of these steps require personal skill or care or exercise judgment, while others are purely ministerial acts and do not need such skill or care. Before the document is brought before the Court the various steps taken amount to preparation, the penultimate step which gives the document, in other respects complete, its legal character, is putting it before the Court in accordance with the rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-20-1948
Reported in : AIR1949All703
1. This is a defendants' appeal in a suit for possession and damages. The material facts are as follows : Karaundia Industrial Development Co. Ltd., owned a flour mill and an ice factory situated at Aisbbagh, Lucknow. The company went into liquidation and the liquidators appointed by the Avadh Chief Court sold to two brothers. Rangnath Khemraj and Srini-vas Khemraj, the said mill and ice factory for & consideration of Rs. 7,61,000. Rangnath Khemraj and Srinivas Khemraj carried on business in Bombay under the firm name 'Messrs. Khemraj. Srikishendas.' The purchasers created an equitable mortgage over the said mill and factory in favour of the Central Bank of India Ltd., for a consideration of Rs. 4,50,000. The two brothers were adjudicated insolvent on 9th September 1930, and the property owned by them, including the said mill and the factory, vested in the official assignee. On 17th December 1930, the Central Bank of India Ltd., filed a suit in the High Court of Bombay (Original Side) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-24-1948
Reported in : AIR1949All433
Agarwalla, J.1. This is defendants' application in revision.2. The applicant had entered into a contract with. Sham Behari Lal and Kunj Behari Lal, plaintiffs opposite parties, on 89th December 1939, for the purchase of twenty five bales of gunny bags. The date of delivery fixed in the contract was 25th January 1940. The applicants failed to take delivery of the goods contracted for with the result-that on 23rd January 1943 the plaintiffs opposite parties filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2121 as damages for breach of contract. While the suit was pending the plaintiffs applied on 13th January 1944, for being declared insolvents. Before this application was granted, Mr. P.K. Bannerji, Official Receiver, was appointed an Interim Receiver of the properties of the plaintiffs by the insolvency Court on 15th January 1944. The 4th February 1944 was the date fixed for the final hearing of the suit. On that date the parties applied for time to file a compromise. No compromise was, however, f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-07-1948
Reported in : AIR1949All528
Bhargava, J.1. Sarju Ram Sahu has filed this appeal against an order, dated 20th May 1943, passed by the Additional Civil Judge of Gorakhpur, setting aside a sale, which was held on 22nd May 1942, in execution of his decree against Jugal Kishore and Ors. staying the execution proceedings under Section 7 (1), U.P. Encumbered Estates Act and directing that the same be consigned to the records. Jugal Kishore is dead. Dularna Bibi (respondent 8) is the widow, Kamal Kishore and Nawal Kishore (respondents 1 and 4) are the sons, and Subodh Chandra and Krishna Kishore (respondents 2 and 5) are the grandsons of Jugal Kishore.2. On 31st August 1915, Jugal Kishore and Nawal Kishore executed a sale deed in favour of Sarju Ram Sahu in respect of certain property for a consideration of Rs. 15,000. The sale was set aside at the instance of the sons of the vendors. Sarju Ram Sahu thereupon instituted Suit No. 155 of 1926 against the vendors to recover the amount of sale consideration. On 22nd February...
Tag this Judgment!