Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-10-1950
Reported in : AIR1953All302
Brij Mohan Lal, J.1. This and the connected appeal No. 7 of 1948 are two appeals by the plaintiff under Section 12 (2), Oudh Courts Act (4 of 1925) against two decrees of a learned single Judge of the erstwhile Chief Court. The appeals were preferred before the amalgamation of the Chief Court with the Allahabad High Court.2. The plaintiff is one Kunwar Radha Krishna Pratap Singh who was formerly the Assistant Manager of the Balrampur Estate. The appellant happens also to be related to the Maharaja, i. e., the proprietor of the estate. He brought the suit, which has given rise to these two appeals, to recover a sum of Rs. 2000 as damages for slander and libel against four persons, namely, (i) H. S. Bates, I. C. S., Manager of the estate, (2) Y. A. Dikshit, Confidential Adviser to the Maharani Saheba, (3) V. V. Singh, Private Secretary to the Maharaja and (4) the Maharaja. In the plaint, as originally filed, damages were claimed against the first three defendants only, and it was stated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-11-1950
Reported in : AIR1951All257
Malik, C.J.1. These applications have been filed on behalf of certain persons who own motor buses and carry passengers for hire on various routes in Uttar Pradesh. The applicants want appropriate relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The applications can be grouped according to the routes over which the transport buses of the various bus-owners or transport companies were running.2. Civil Misc. Cases Nos. 4 to 7, 71 to 98 and 133 to 140 of 1950 relate to the route Khurja-Bulandshahr-Delhi. The applicants in these cases are represented by Mr. Gopal Swarup Pathak. Civil Misc. Cases Nos. 8 to 70 of 1950 relate to Meerut-Delhi route and the applicants in these cases are also represented by Mr. Pathak.3. Civil Misc. Cases Nos. 99, 100, 104 to 116 of 1950 relate to Garhmukteshwar-Hapur-Delhi route and the applicants in these cases are represented by Shri Alladi Krishnaswami and Mr. S.B. L. Gour.4. Civil Misc. Cases Nos. 118, 119 and 120 of 1950 relate to buses running on the Mathura ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-26-1950
Reported in : AIR1951All64
Agarwala, J.1. The memorandum of appeal in the above ease was presented before a Bench of this Court on 24-2-1950 with a stamp report that the appeal was within time till 25-2-1950 and that there was a deficiency in the court-fee paid to the extent of Rs. 295/14/-. The amount of court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal was Rs. 19/12/- only. Mr. Jagdish Sahai, counsel for the appellant, who filed the appeal, requested the Bench to grant one month's time for making good the deficiency. As the Bench considered that the question whether time could be granted for making good the deficiency in the court-fee extending beyond the period of limitation as a matter of course or under certain circumstances only, was a question of sufficient importance to merit consideration by a larger Bench, they referred the following four questions to this Bench :'1. Whether Section 4, Court-fees Act, is subject to, or controlled by, the provision of, and principles underlying, Section 6(2) of that Act ?2. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-27-1950
Reported in : AIR1951All79
P.L. Bhargava, J.1. The question, which has been referred to the Full Bench, is as follows:'Whether a memorandum of appeal, which is found to be defective for want of proper court-fee and is, therefore, not admitted in view of Section 4, Court-fees Act, and it is ultimately rejected on that ground, can be treated as an appeal when the Court has refused to admit or register it as an appeal.'2. The facts relevant to the question under consideration are these : On 19-3-1937, Shri Hari Har Prasad Singh, the decree-holder-appellant, obtained a money decree for Rs. 9,440 together with costs and future interest against Seth Beni Chand, who is the respondent in this appeal, from the Court of the Civil Judge of Banda. The judgment-debtor presented to this Court a memorandum of appeal against the said decree. The memorandum of appeal was insufficiently stamped, a court-fee of Rs. 10 only was paid, although a much larger amount of court-fee was payable. The deficiency in court-fee was not made go...
Tag this Judgment!