Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
KANHAIYA LAL, LINDSAY, TUDBALL, JJ.
Mohamed Ghazanfar Ullah - Appellant
Versus
Babu Lal & Anr. - Respondent
Decided On : 29-04-1921
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application in revision from a decision of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Allahabad, The plaintiffs are the lessees of a certain Mandi in Allahabad Town, The defendant is a person who took a contract from the Municipal Board of Allahabad to build or repair a very small drain in this Mandi and also to repair certain roads outside the Mandi. He stacked upon the land of the Mandi not only materials for the building of the drain but also materials for the repairing of the road outside. These materials were stacked for at least two months. The plaintiff sued him for damages for his unlawful act in that he stacked all these materials, that is, chiefly the materials for the repairing of the roads, on his land, and thereby prevented him from using it. The Court below has decreed the claim.
2. The point raised in this Court was that the suit would not lie because Section 42 of the Sewerage and Drainage Act of 1894 applied and compensation could only be obtained in the manner laid down in that section. At a mitter of tab, the aforesaid Act has been repealed and is no longer in force. It was repealed by the Municipalities Act of 1916, vide Schedule IX of that Act. It is urged before us that Section 324 of the Municipalities Act would apply. This argument clearly has no force. This is not an act done by the Municipal Board or by any member or any officer or servant thereof, nor is it an act in regard to which the Municipalities Act lays down that compensation should be payable by the Municipal Board. There is no force whatsoever in the application. It is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
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
