Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
DANIELS, J.
Badlu Singh - Appellant
Versus
Panthu Singh - Respondent
Decided On : 16-01-1923
JUDGMENT
Daniels, J. - This is an application for revision of an order of a Small Cause Court restoring to the file? The application is based on the ground that Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act was not complied with. That section requires that the applicant shall, at the time of presenting his application, either deposit the amount due from him or give security to the satisfaction of the Court for the performance of the decree. In this case, the applicant gave a security bond on the date of his application. The next day the learned Judge of the Court below directed the applicant to deposit the amount in cash and the applicant did so in accordance with the order. The Court below did not record the reason for passing this order but the reason is apparent on an examination of the security bond itself. The bond was one purporting to hypothecate Immovable property. It was, therefore, invalid without registration and it was not registered. Under these circumstances I must hold that the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of law as interpreted in the rulings of this Court e.g., Jagan Nath v. Chet Ram 28 A. 470 : A.W.N. (1906) 93 : 3 A.L.J. 318 and Chhotey Lal v. Lakhmi Chand 34 Ind. Cas. 113 : 38 A. 425 : 14 A.L.J. 549 and Madras High Courts in which it was held that it was sufficient if the security was deposited by the applied cant within the period of thirty days allowed for making his application, but this is not the view which has prevailed in this High Court nor is it in accordance with the language of the section which specifically says that the security must be tendered "at he time of presenting his application." I accordingly allow this application and set aside the order of the Court below restoring the suit with costs of these proceedings in this Court and in the Court below.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
