Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BOMFORD, DARLING, JJ.
Ram Adhar Pathak - Appellant
Versus
Indradeo Singh - Respondent
First Appeal (Petition No. 4 of 1936-37)
Decided On : 19-08-1937
JUDGMENT
Bomford, J.M.
1. (August 12, 1937). The facts are simple and admitted. The Respondent bought a zamindari and the Appellant filed a pre-emption suit. The latter paid down Rs. 20,000 and took possession but the Respondent won on appeal to the High Court and recovered possession of the property without paying the money that he owed the Appellant. The latter applied u/s 144 and as the money was not forthcoming the Court ordered sale of the property. The Respondent then applied under the Encumbered Estates Act and it must be said that as far as one can see the application was a genuine application and not intended to defeat this debt alone. After some delay the Respondent applied for the sale proceedings u/s 144 to be stayed and the Collector ordered stay u/s 7 of the Act. The Appellant claims that proceedings should not be stayed because debt under the Act means a debt based on a contract between the parties and not on the order of a Court. I agree with the Collector in thinking that as defined in the Act debt means any pecuniary liability and there is no doubt that the Respondent has to pay the Appellant Rs. 20,000 and that sum is part of his debts. The appeal is dismissed with costs and I think the Respondent is entitled to his costs and Rs. 10 pleader's fee.
Darling S.M.
(August 19, 1937)
2. I agree.
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
