Allahabad Court November 1947 Judgments
Ram Baksh Vs. Mt. Rajeshwari Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All213
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(w) against an order granting an application for review, In order to appreciate the points raised in this appeal, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts.2. It appears that Mt. Rajeshwari. Kunwar obtained a decree for arrears of rent against the appellant Ram Baksh for Rs. 319/12/- on 7th June 1931. This decree became final. In execution of the decree, ejectment of Ram Baksh appears to have been ordered on 23rd August 1932, but actual possession was given to the decree-holder by the Amin on 26th November 1932, on which date Ram Baksh also deposited the decretal amount with the Amin. Against the order of ejectment, Ram Baksh went in appeal to the Commissioner who, however, held that the appeal lay to the civil Court and on Slat March 1933, ordered the return of the memorandum of appeal for presentation to the proper Court. Thereupon the appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge who dismissed it on 23rd July 1935, o...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhiya Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All276
ORDERBind Basin Prasad, J.1. This judgment will govern 101 references, namely, 884 to 389, 391 to 404, 441 to 457, 469 to 496, 815 to 829, 835 to 844, 990 to 999 and 1376 of 1946. Common questions of law arise in them. 100 of these references are by the learned Sessions Judge of Agra and the remaining one by that of Cawnpore.2. In the cases from Agra the charge against the accused persons, who are all dealers in cloth, was that after 31-12-1944, they were found in possession of cloth manufactured before 1-8-1943, and thereby they contravened Clause 14 of the Government of India Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943, and were accordingly punishable under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules. In the. case from Cawnpore, the charge was that the accused person was on 5-1-1945, in possession of printed cloth marked in June 1944, and thus contravened the amended Clause 14.3. The defence in all the cases was that the accused persons tried to dispose of the cloth in question, but could not...
Tag this Judgment!Jamil Ahmad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All225
ORDERSankar Saran, J.1. This is an application under Section 491 Criminal P.C., by one Sheikh Jamil Ahmad who has been ordered to be detained under the U.P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act, 1947. 2. He was arrested on 28th September 1947. It appears he is a contractor who used to supply bamboo poles to Government for the use in tents and even now, according to his allegations, carries on that business.3. After his arrest an application for bail was moved on his behalf, which was opposed by the police in their report, D/- 4-10-1947. On 6th October 1947, the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector in opposing the bail reported that the offence was a non-bailable one and that the applicant was being detained under the 'Ordinance'. A day later, on 7th October, the Prosecuting Inspector reported that he was detained under Section 3, Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act, 1947, by the District Magistrate and that the matter could be 'only dealt with by this Court under Section 491, Crimi...
Tag this Judgment!Amba Prasad and ors. Vs. District Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All325
Sinha, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit for a declaration and injunction. The plaintiffs are the owners of certain motor lorries plying on hire and carrying passengers between Delhi and Garhmuktesar. The road lies along an area within the jurisdiction of the District Board of Meerut. Certain taxes on 'circumstances and property' were imposed upon the plaintiffs for the years 1939, 1940 and 1941 by the District Board of Meerut. They took exception to this imposition, but the District Board repelled their objection. Then they made certain representation to the local Government, but they failed even there. The present suit was then instituted for the reliefs mentioned above.2. The case of the plaintiffs was that they did not fall within the mischief of Section 114(a), District Boards Act (local Act, No. X of 1922) in that they 'neither resided nor carried on business in the rural area....' The defence, inter alia, was that the suit was not within the competence o...
Tag this Judgment!Kanpur Leather Workers Union Through Shiva Dayal Vs. the Kanpur Tanner ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1947
Reported in: AIR1949All558
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal by the Kanpur Leather Workers Union against the order of the Certifying Officer declaring the Kanpur Tannery and Leather Workers Union as the representative union of the workmen employed in the Industrial establishment engaged in leather tanning and manufacture in Kanpur under Rule 9, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act of 1946.2. The contention of the appellant union is that it represents the employees of Messrs. Coo-per Allen & Co. only, and as such, it should have been recognised as the representative of Messrs. Cooper Allen & Co. It is further contended that the respondent union represents the leather trade in general and contains workers of various establishments, but that the majority of the workers of Messrs. Cooper Allen & Co., are members of the appellant union.3. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent union that as the standing orders submitted to the Certifying Officer for the leather trade were on behalf of the Employers' A...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Charan and ors. Vs. Ramadhar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All327
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for the possession of a house situated in village Alauddinpur which is close to the town of Kanauj in the district of Farrukhabad. The plaintiff respondent is the proprietor of 5/6 share in this village and is its lambardar. The defendant was a ryot in the village and occupied the disputed house. On or about 16 8-1936, defendant 3 sold the house to defendants 1 and 2. In June 1940, defendants 1 and 2 sold that house to defendants 4 and 5. On 8-12 1948, the plaintiff brought a suit from which this appeal arises, alleging that Alauddinpur was an agricultural village and the ryot in it had no right to transfer by sale any house. He contended that the two sales aforesaid were null and void in the eyes of law and he was entitled to the possession of the house.2. The defence was that Alauddinpur which is situated between the towns of Kanauj on the one hand and Makrundnagar on the other is not an agricultural village a...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Sattar Vs. Behari Lal Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All339
ORDERBind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is a report under Section 438, Criminal P.C., by the learned Sessions Judge of Mirzapur recommending that the order of acquittal of Behari Lal Jain from offences under Sections 482, 483 and 486, Penal Code, be set aside. Briefly the facts are as follows:2. Mohammad Sattar, the complainant, is a manufacturer of bidis in Mirzapur city. The packets of his bidis bear a pictorial trade-mark label known as 'Toofan Mail' Bidis. A copy of that picture is on the record. The accused is also a manufacturer of bidis in the same city and admittedly he has been using a pictorial trade-mark on the packets of his bidis known as the 'Imperial Mail'. It was Mohammad Sattar's case that the accused has by using the label known as the 'Imperial Mail' pirated upon his trade-mark and has thus committed offences under Sections 480, 483 and 486.3. Learned trying Magistrate, Mr. P.J. Moore, by his judgment, dated 24-8-1946, acquitted the accused. His judgment runs into fourteen...
Tag this Judgment!Buida Singh Vs. Kariya Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All219
Sinha, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal and the question involved is a Question of limitation and one of first impression.2. In a suit for foreclosure of a mortgage, a preliminary decree was passed on 16-2-1935. Certain other minor events took place, which it is not necessary to follow. On 15th February, 1938 an application for the preparation of the final decree was made. It was followed by an application for amendment of the decree and, on April 2,1938 the decree was amended. It provided for the payment of the amount in three half, yearly instalments falling due in July, 1938 and January and July, 1939. It was also provided that, in the event of default of three instalments the mortgagee would be entitled to apply for preparation of the final decree for foreclosure. There was a default. Before, however, an application for the final decree could be made, the U.P. Debt Redemption Act (Act XIII of 1940) came into force. This Act only allowed a self-liquidating mortgage within the m...
Tag this Judgment!Sitla Bux Singh Vs. Mahabir Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All221
ORDERSapru, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order allowing an amendment of the valuation given in the plaint. The defendant is the applicant in this revision. The suit which the plaintiffs, brought was for redemption under Section 12, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. In the plaint, as originally presented to the Court, the principal amount secured on the basis of the mortgage for the redemption of which the plaintiffs were suing, was shown as Rs. 1,000. This was subsequently brought down to Rs. 564. In his examination before the framing of the issues one of the plaintiffs stated that the amount secured was below Rs. 500. Thereafter the defendant pointed out that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of Section 10, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The plaintiffs thereupon applied for an amendment of their plaint and this was allowed by the leaned munsif. The present revision is directed against this order of the leaned munsif.2. The ques...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›