Allahabad Court March 1947 Judgments
Bishan Dutt and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All50
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is an application in revision by two persons, Bishan Datt and Radha Kishan who have been convicted by the Courts below of an offence under Section 188, Penal Code and have been fined Rs. 100 each. The facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows:2. On 22-3-1941, in the course of a proceeding under Rule 15 of the Kumaun Nayabad Rules the Deputy Commissioner in charge of the Kumaun Division passed an order directing the two applicants to demolish and remove a cow shed which they had built on certain benap land. The proceeding which resulted in this order was instituted upon a report made by one Badri Datt. The applicants being aggrieved by that order filed a. regular suit in the civil Court for a declaration that they were entitled to occupy the land in dispute as a valid extension. Their suit was dismissed by the first Court but was decreed on appeal by the Deputy Commissioner in charge of the Kumaun Division. The Board of Revenue, however, finally dismissed ...
Tag this Judgment!Hamid Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All59
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Hamid Khan appeals against his conviction under Section 379/511 read with Section 75, Penal Code, and a sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The conviction of the appellant under Section 379/511, Penal Code is correct. The sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment with the aid of Section 75, Penal Code is, however, illegal.2. Section 75, Penal Code, provides for enhanced punishment when a person is convicted of an offence punishable under chap. 12 or Chap. 17, Penal Code, with imprisonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards. The offence of attempt to commit theft does not fall under Chap. 17, Penal Code. It really falls under chap. 23 of the Code. It follows, therefore, that Section 75, Penal Code cannot apply to persons who are convicted for attempting to commit theft. A similar view has been taken in the cases reported in Empress of India v. Ram Dayal ('81) 3 All. 773, Queen-Empress v. Ajudhia ('95) 17 All. 120, Queen-Empre...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Ram Devi Vs. Badlu Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All51
Sinha, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council under Section 110, Civil P.C. on the ground that the decree of this Court involves, 'directly or indirectly, some claim or question to or respecting property' of the value of Rs. 10,000 or even upwards. The facts, which are, for the purposes of this application, not in dispute, are briefly these.2. The applicant, Mt. Ram Devi, brought a suit for a declaration that she was the sole owner of a certain enclosure and the defendants were not entitled to proceed against it in execution of the decree in Suit No. 183 of 1938, Badlu Ram v. Mool Chand and of the decree in Suit No, 4336 of 1934 of the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore nor in the execution case No 205 of 1937, passed by the Munsif of Cawnpore, in the suit brought by Ambey Prasad against her husband, Mool Chand. There was a further prayer that defendant 2, Mool Chand, be restrained from realising the rents from the tenants of the said enclosure. Her ca...
Tag this Judgment!Kaluram Kankaria Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All28
Malik, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1), Income tax Act (11 [XI] of 1922. as amended in 1939. The facts of this case are fully set out in the statement of the case made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee, Seth Kaluram Kankaria, is a moneylender. On 21-7-1930, he took from one Udaimal four mortgages of the aggregate, value of Rs. 1,00,000. Three of these mortgages were for Rs. 20,000, each and the fourth one was for Rs. 40,000. On 1-10-1930, a creditor filed, an application that Udaimal be declared an insolvent and Udaimal was adjudged an insolvent on 28-3-1932. The Receiver appointed by-the Court to take charge of the property of the insolvent filed a suit under Sections 53 and 54, Provincial Insolvency Act, for annulment of the four mortgages on various grounds. On 12-9-1942, the Court ultimately held that the four mortgages were void. The Court came to the conclusion that the three mortgages for Rs. 20,000 each were without consideration and that out of th...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Kaluram Kankaria, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1947
Reported in: [1947]15ITR209(All)
This is reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) as amended in 1939. The facts of this case are fully set out in the statement of the case made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.The assessee, Seth Kaluram Kankaria, is a money-lender. On the 21st July, 1930, he took from one Udaimal four mortgages of the aggregate value of Rs. 1,00,000. Three of these mortgages were for Rs. 20,000 each and the fourth one was for Rs. 40,000. On the 18th October, 1930, a creditor filed an application that Udaimal be declared an insolvent and Udaimal was adjudged an insolvent on the 28th March, 1932. The receiver appointed by the Court to take charge of the property of the insolvent filed a suit under Sections 53 and 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for annulment of the four mortgages on various grounds. On the 12th September, 1942, the Court ultimately held that the four mortgages were void. The Court came to the conclusion that the three mortgages for Rs. 20,000 each...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P., C. P. and Berar Vs. Raja Indrajit P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1947
Reported in: [1947]15ITR390(All)
Mr. Brij Lal Gupta states that, when this reference was made, the point involved in this case had not been definitely decided by this Court. He concedes that he is not now in a position to argue that the decision arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal was incorrect. In these circumstances the question referred to this Court by the Tribunal must be answered in the affirmative. The assessee is entitled to his costs of this reference. We assess the fee of learned counsel for the department in this case at one hundred rupees. He is allowed six weeks time to file the certificate of fee.Reference answered in affirmative....
Tag this Judgment!Sahdeo Roy and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All43
Sankar Saran, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Ghazipur submitting the record to this Court with the recommendation that the conviction of Sahdeo Rai and Ram Raj be quashed and their sentences beset aside.2. The short point in this case is that the two applicants were convicted of an offence under Rule 89(6), Defence of India Rules, and were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 each or in default to one month's rigorous imprisonment. The maximum sentence provided for offences under Rule 89(6) is six months' rigorous imprisonment or fine. The learned Magistrate tried this case summarily and convicting the applicants passed the sentence mentioned above. Against this sentence the applicants went in revision to the learned Sessions Judge who came to the conclusion that the offence was not triable summarilynot only because no application in that behalf had been made by the prosecution but also because offences punishable under Rule 89(6) had not been specified by the Centr...
Tag this Judgment!Bishan Sarup Vs. Ch. Richpal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All29
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder, whose application for execution has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. The facts are briefly these : on 9-1-1931 the appellant obtained a simple money decree against five persons, including the respondent, Ch. Richhpal Singh. On 13-4-1931 an application for execution was presented by the appellant against all the judgment-debtors, barring Ch. Richpal Singh. In 1936 the other four made an application under the Encumbered Estates Act. On. 17-1-1936 the Collector passed the usual order under Section 6 of that Act. The proceedings under Section 9 followed and on 5-1-1940 the liability of all the judgment debtors, including Ch. Richpal Singh, was deter-mined and apportioned. On 16-9-1942, the application for execution was dismissed. The last application, which has given rise to the present appeal, was made on 19-11-1943, against Ch. Richpal Singh. An objection was taken to this application on the ground that it was barred by limit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›