Allahabad Court October 1948 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.
Dr. Abdul Ghafoor Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ393
ORDERBind Basni Prasad, J.1. These are two applications under Section 491, Criminal P. C., by Dr. Abdul Ghafoor of Pilibhit and his wife Begam Abdul Ghafoor. On 18th August 1918, the husband and the wife were arrested under the orders of the District Magistrate passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 8, U. P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act, 1947. Before the espiry of the period of fifteen days .for which they were ordered to be detained by the District Magistrate, the Provincial Government on 1st September 1948, passed an order of detention for six months against them under 8. 3 (l)(a) of the Act. The grounds of detention supplied to Dr. Abdul Ghafoor under Section 8 of the Act are as follows:You along with your' wife have been in direct correspondence with undesirable elements hostile to the interests of the Indian Dominion. The correspondence which you so carried on reveals that you, with the help and guidance of certain persona of Pakistan, were planning to resort to tr...
Dr. Jainand Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ498
Bhargava, J.1. Dr. Jainand Taga, a Homeo, path, and his compounder, Kali Charan Brahman, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Meerufc for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201, Penal Code. The charge against them was that, in furtherance of their common intention, they had, on the night between 19th and 20th May 1947, committed the murder of Karan Singh at the residence of the doctor in Collectorganj, Hapur, and, on the fol-lowing morning, they had removed his dead body to Kalinadi bridge at Samrauli for disposal, in order to cause the evidence of the commission of murder to disappear with the intention of screening the offender. The learned Sessions Judge found Jainand alone guilty of murder and convicted and sentenced him to death under Section 302, Penal Code. He also found both Jainand and Kali Chacan guilty under 8. 201, Penal Code, but in view of his conviction under Section 302, Penal Code, Jainand was not convicted under Section 201, Penal Code, and Kali C...
Dr. Abdul Ghafoor Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All248
ORDERBind Basni Prasad, J.1. These are two applications under Section 491, Criminal P.C., by Dr. Abdul Ghafoor of Pilibhit and his wife Begam Abdul Ghafoor. On 18th August 1948, the husband and the wife were arrested under the orders of the District Magistrate passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, U.P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act, 1947. Before the expiry of the period of fifteen days for which they were ordered to be detained by the District Magistrate, the Provincial Government on 1st September 1948, passed an order of detention for six months against them under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act. The grounds of detention supplied to Dr. Abdul Ghafoor under Section 5 of the Act are as follows:You along with your wife have been in direct correspondence with undesirable elements hostile to the interests of the Indian Dominion. The correspondence which you so carried on reveals that you, with the help and guidance of certain persons of Pakistan, were planning to resort to ...
The Municipal Board Vs. Dr. Radha Ballabh Pathak
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All301
Seth, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The defendant happens to be the Municipal Hoard, Mathura. The suit was instituted by the respondent, Radha Ballabh Pathak, for an injunction to restrain the appellant Board from 'making any distress of the plaintiff for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 334-10-3 the alleged water tax...for the period 1st July 1939 to 31st March 1943.' The tax claimed was in respect of a building known as Old Police Outpost. It belongs to the Government. It was let to the plaintiff-respondent who, after making certain temporary alterations, further sublet it to a number of sub-tenants. During the period for which the tax is claimed, the plaintiff-respondent was not in occupation of the building. He was not the owner because the Government was the owner. He was not the occupier because the sub-tenants were occupying the building. Therefore, he was neither the owner nor the occupier during the period in question. The suit was de-creed by the Court of first instance...
Abdul Latiff Vs. Dost Mohammad and Co., Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All304
Agarwala, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal. The appellant filed a suit for the taking of accounts of a dissolved partnership. The defendant made an application under Section 34, Arbitration Act, alleging that in the partnership agreement there was a clause by which all disputes and differences whatsoever in connexion with or arising out of the partnership between the parties thereto shall be referred to the sole arbitration of Haji Dost Mohammad and that, therefore, the present suit should be stayed. The plaintiff objected to the stay of the suit on the ground, inter alia that the arbitrator mentioned in the arbitration agreement, namely, Haji Dost Mohammad, being himself a share-holder in the defendant company 'Dost Mohammad and Co. Ltd.' (which was arrayed as defendant 1 in the suit) there was sufficient reason why the Court should decide the case itself and not stay it. The learned Judge of the Court below considered that the parties had themselves agreed to the aribtration of Haji ...
Dr. Jainand and anr. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All291
Bhargava, J.1. Dr. Jainand Taga, a Homeopath, and his compounder, Kali Charan Brahman, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201, Penal Code. The charge against them was that, in furtherance of their common intention, they had, on the night between 19th and 20th May 1947, committed the murder of Karan Singh at the residence of the doctor in Collectorganj, Hapur, and, on the following morning, they had removed his dead body to Kalinadi bridge at Samrauli for disposal, in order to cause the evidence of the commission of murder to disappear with the intention of screening the offender. The learned Sessions Judge found Jainand alone guilty of murder and convicted and sentenced him to death under Section 302, Penal Code. He also found both Jainand and Kali Charan guilty under Section 201, Penal Code, but in view of his conviction under Section 802, Penal Code, Jainand was not convicted under Section 201, Penal Code, and Kali ...
Ram Samuj and ors. Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ379
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal by Ram Samuj against his conviction under 8. 412, Penal Code. Izhar and Basil have appealed from jail against their conviction under Section 395, Penal Code.2. The case relates to a dacoity at the house or shop of Mata Badal of village Gorari Khalil in the district of Jaunpur. The dacoity took place on the evening of 26th October 1943, at about a or 8.30 p. m. The report was made in the Thana at 2 a. in. the same night, and the number of dacoits was mentioned at about twelve or thirteen, The story for the prosecution was that while Mata Badal and other members .of his family were still awake, five or sis men suddenly cams into the house and caught hold of Mata Badal. They were armed with various weapons and caused injuries to Mat Badal and forced him to disclose where he kept valuable property. Four or five other dacoits also entered the house after the first five or six and broke the boxes and took away ornaments, clothes and other property belonging to...
Dharmendra Nath Shastri Vs. Rex Through Sheoraj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All353; 1949CriLJ550
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. The application in criminal Revision no. 97 of 1948 was filed by Sheoraj Singh against an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mearut, dismissing his appeal against an order of a First Class Magistrate of Meerut by which the latter had convicted him under B. 465, Penal Code, ana sentenced him to Rs. 100 fine.2. The prosecution of the applicant was started on the complaint of one Dharmendra Nath Shastri, a teacher in Sanskrit at the Meerut College, the accused Sheoraj Singh being then an Inspector in the Traffic Police there.3. On Slat May 1944, the applicant was allotted by the House Controller a half portion, Including the ground and first floors, of a house, No. 301, Boundary Road, Meerut, belonging to the complainant Dharmendra Nath Shastri at a monthly rent of Rs. 100.4. The House Control Order prevailing at Meerut admittedly prohibited tenants from sub-letting any portion of their tenancy except with the permission of the House Controller.5. On 6th September 19...
Ram Samuj and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All245
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal by Ram Samuj against his conviction under Section 412, Penal Code. Izhar and Basu have appealed from jail against their conviction under Section 395, Penal Code.2. The case relates to a dacoity at the house or shop of Mata Badal of village Gorari Khalil in the district of Jaunpur. The dacoity took place on the evening of 26th October 1943, at about 8 or 8.30 p. m. The report was made in the Thana at 2 a. m. the same night, and the number of dacoits was mentioned at about twelve or thirteen. The story for the prosecution was that while Mata Badal and other members of his family were still awake, five or six men suddenly came into the house and caught hold of Mata Badal. They were armed with various weapons and caused injuries to Mata Badal and forced him to disclose where he kept valuable property. Four or five other dacoits also entered the house after the first five or six and broke the boxes and took away ornaments, clothes and other property belonging...
Dwarka Das Vs. Pearay Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All234
Agarwala, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Additional Civil Judge, Mathura, rejecting the objections of the appellants to the passing of a decree in terms of an award. Four parties viz., Pearey Lal and his son Kishen Prasad, Jagannath and his son Gopal Prasad, Dwarka Prasad (alias Dwarka Das) and his minor sons Lachhman Prasad and Sanwal Prasad. Sri Nath and his minor son Sita Ram entered into an agreement to refer their disputes to the arbitration of one Bishambhar Nath. This agreement is dated 2nd February 1944. In pursuance of this reference to arbitration Bishambhar Nath gave an award on 2ndAugust 1944, and he also Informed the parties of his having done so. Later. an, Bishambhar Nath took proceedings under Section 14, Arbitration Act, on 31st August 194S. He made an application to the Court stating that the disputes between the parties having been referred to him for arbitration he had given an ward and had informed the parties also about it that he was filing the aw...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »