Allahabad Court November 1935 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gangadhar Marwari Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All150
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, recommending that an order passed by a Magistrate, first class, of that district, under Sections 133/137, Criminal P.C., be set aside. It appears that the District Board complained that Gangadhar had encroached upon a certain public way and thus obstructed the use of that way by the public. A report was called for from the Qanungo, who stated that there had been no encroachment. The Magistrate thereupon proceeded to hold an enquiry purporting to be one under Section 133, Criminal P.C. The case dragged on from 22nd August 1934 to 13th June 1935, when it was finally decided against Gangadhar, who was directed to remove the construction made by him on the land alleged to be part of the public way. Gangadhar moved the Sessions Judge in revision and contended that the procedure laid down by Section 139-A (2), Criminal P.C., had not been followed. This contention was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, wh...
Harish Chandra Vs. Hindu Dharma Sewak Mandal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All197; 161Ind.Cas.507
Harries, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against a decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing his claim. The; plaintiff's claim was for possession of certain property together with mesne profits, and the Court of first instance, whilst refusing to give him any mesne profits, decreed his claim for possession. On appeal, however, the learned District Judge of Saharanpur reversed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiff's claim: hence the present appeal.2. The claim was for the possession of a piece of land which had been purchased in the following circumstances The plaintiff's father, Rai Saheb Sheo Nath, was a social reformer and a man of a religious turn of mind. It appears that he and Pandit Deo Ratan Sharma had become very friendly and had discussed a project of erecting in Dehra Dun a home for the training of Hindu religious reformers. In order to make the building of this home possible the plaintiff's father agreed that he would purchase property upo...
Gopinath Naik Vs. Commissioner, Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All286
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(3), Income-tax Act. The assessee is one Pandit Gopinath Naik of Bakhera Bazar, District Basti. He submitted a return under Section 22(2) for the assessment year 1929-30. The return, was not accepted by the Assistant Commissioner, who was empowered to act as an Income-tax officer. He was assessed at an income of Rs. 10,450 including Rs. 1,00,000 as his income from money-lending business. He appealed to the Commissioner, who set aside the assessment and directed a fresh assessment. The case was subsequently dealt with by the Income-tax Officer, Basti, who issued a notice under Section 23(2) directing the assessee to produce his accounts for money-lending business. The accounts were produced, and it was discovered that there were serious omissions which created a strong suspicion that the accounts had been manipulated. An opportunity was given to the assessee to explain certain matters. No explanation was, however, furnished, but a fr...
Gopinath Naik Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, United Provinces.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1935
Reported in: [1936]4ITR1(All)
NIAMATULLAH, J. - This is a reference under Section 66(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is one Pandit Gopinath Naik of Bakhera Bazaar, District Basti. He submitted return under section 22(2) for the assessment year 1929-30. The return was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner, who was empowered to act as an Income Tax Officer. He was assessed at an income of Rs. 1,00,450 including Rs. 1,00,000 as his income from money-lending businesses. He appealed to the Commissioner, who set aside lending business. He appealed to the Commissioner, who set aside the assessment and directed a fresh assessment. The case was subsequently dealt with the by the Income-tax Officer, Basti, who issued a notice under Section 23(2) directing the assessee to produce his accounts for money-lending business. The accounts were produced, and it was discovered that there were serious omissions which created a strong suspicion that the accounts had been manipulated. An opportunity was given to the assessee to ...
Mt. Maharaji Vs. Bhagwati Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All85; 160Ind.Cas.1037
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of a grove and certain fixed-rate tenancies. The Courts below decreed the claim but on appeal a learned Judge of this Court has dismissed the suit.2. It appears that the properties in dispute originally belonged to one Upadhya and on his death it came into the possession of his widow Mt. Maktula who made a gift of it to the defendant Ram Kumar. On Mt. Maktula's death the plaintiff's father Dwarka Prasad brought a suit in 1925 for possession of these properties against Ram Kumar and his brothers; This suit was decreed and the decree was confirmed by the appellate Court. Dwarka Prasad then applied for the execution of his decree and obtained formal possession over the properties in dispute on 23rd February 1927. After Dwarka's death the present plaintiffs as his daughters and heirs have brought the suit for possession against the defendant on the ground that they have been in unlawful possession. The learned...
Rameshwar Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All86; 160Ind.Cas.1027
ORDER1. This is a criminal revision by Rameshwar Das against his conviction under Section 4(1), U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, Act 6 of 1912, and a fine of Rs. 150 or in default one month's E.I. The trial was summary and an application in revision was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Two legal grounds have been taken in revision. First, that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction, and second that the applicant could not be convicted when the goods were exposed to sale by somebody else. The enquiry began with a post-card addressed to the Municipal Board of Allahabad from Katni to the effect that the accused was sending a consignment of 350 tins of ghee to Allahabad which was unfit for human consumption. M. Barkatullah Khan, the sanitary inspector of the Municipality, took a sample from one of the 350 tins of ghee on the 2nd May 1934 which he apparently found at the godown of the firm of Shyam Narain Bhagwati Narain Arhatiyas to whom the accused firm had sent the consignment fr...
Genda Ram and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All143
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. Genda Ramand Ganga Dutt have been convicted under Section 500, I.P.C., for defaming the complainant firm National Emporium, Roorki, by a Magistrate, 1st Class, Saharanpur, and fined Rs. 250 and Rs. 100, respectively. The alleged defamation is contained in two letters, one dated 10th December 1934, and the other dated 23rd December of the same year, and in an advertisement mainly published in Lahore in leaflets distributed broadcast. The learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and the sentences but ruled that the letter of 23rd December 1934, did not contain any such imputation as could amount to defamation. Genda Ram and Ganga Dutt have applied to this Court in revision, challenging the view taken by the Courts below of the character of the alleged imputations.2. It is no longer in dispute that both the applicants are criminally responsible for the imputations, if any, contained in the letter dated 10th December and the advertisement, if such imputations amo...
SaqlaIn Ahmad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All165
ORDER1. Saqlain Ahmad, an employee in the office of the Municipal Board, Budaun, was convicted by a Special Magistrate, 1st Class, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 under Sections 506 and 507, I.P.C. His appeal in the Court of Session at Budaun was dismissed. He has applied to this Court in revision. The circumstances which led to the prosecution of the applicant are as follows:2. An anonymous letter was received by post on 20th June 1934, by Mr. Abdur Rashid Khan, Reserve Inspector of Police, Budaun. The contents of the letter are of a scurrilous character abounding in filthy abuse and threats. If the applicant is found to be writer of it, the maximum sentence provided by law cannot be considered to be too severe. On 30th June 1934, the Inspector-General of Police, U.P., received an anonymous petition which purports to ventilate a number of grievances against Mr. Abdur Rashid Khan in respect of acts done by him in his official capacity in relation...
Mumtaz HusaIn and ors. Vs. Babu Brahmanand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All298
1. These are appeals against a judgment dated 23rd December 1931, of the learned Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, by which he decided two suits, Nos. 37 and 38 of 1931, of his Court. The suits were connected, and so are the present appeals, which can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment. The facts, briefly stated, are that in the year 1884 Hijri (=1765-1766 A. D.) a ' farman' was issued by the then King of Delhi, Shah Alam, conferring upon one Saiyid Ghulam Asadullah Khan, an ancestor of the defendants in both the present suits, an income of Rs. 2,368, to be realized from lands in the Amroha pargana of the 'Sambhal Sarkar,' as it is described in the 'farman.' A condition of the grant was that the grantee and his descendants should 'keep it safe from all the changes and transfers.' This grant, it appears, has always been recognized by the various Governments that have succeeded the Government of the Kings of Delhi: vide extracts from statements showing perpetual 'Muafi' holdings p...
Mumtaz HussaIn and ors. Vs. Babu Brahmanand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1935
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.56
1. There are appeals against a judgment dated December 23, 1931, of the learned Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, by which he decided two suits, Nos. 37 and 38 of 1931, of his Court. The suits were connected, and so are the present appeals, which can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment. The facts, briefly stated, are that in the year 1884 Hijri ( 1765-1766 A.D.) a 'farman' was issued by the then King of Delhi, Shah Alam, Conferring upon one Saiyid Ghulam Asadullah Khan, an ancestor of the defendants in both the present suits, an income of Rs. 2,368, to be realized from lands in the Amroha Pargana of the 'Sambhal Sarkar,' as it is described in the 'farman.' A condition of the grant was that the grantee and his descendants should ''keep it safe from all the changes and transfers.' This grant, it appears, has always been recognized by the various Governments that have succeeded the Government of the Kings of Delhi: vide extracts from statement showing perpetual 'muafi' holdings pant...