SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1935 Supreme(All) 159

ALLSOP
Molvi Muhammad Umar Khan – Appellant
Versus
Naziruddin Ahmad Minai – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Allsop, J. - This second appeal arises out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The defendant-appellant is a lawyer practising in Basti. He and his two sons were entered on the electoral roll for the District Board, but when that roll was revised in the year 1931 their names were omitted. The period for making objections about entries in the rolls expired in September 1931. On 7th October the appellant made an application to the Deputy Magistrate who was acting as the returning officer or election officer and was dealing with the preparation of the roll. He complained that his name and the names of his sons had been omitted and suggested an enquiry into the reasons why this had been done. He, at the same time, said that if such an enquiry foe re made it would appear who the persons were who were concerned in the conspiracy. Then on 15th October 1931 the plaintiff-respondent, who is the editor of a paper called the "Insaf," published a notice in which he said that he had learnt with surprise that the names of the appellant who was a pillar of the Aman Sabha and the names of his sons had been omitted from the District Board electoral roll and that they had not dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top