Allahabad Court December 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.
Rex. Vs. NaIn Sukh Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ542
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Provincial Government against an appellate order of acquittal of Seth Nain Sukh Das. Seth Nain Sukh Das was proseouted for contravention of the order of the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, passed under 3. 7 (l) of the United Province (Temporary) Control of Eent and Eviction Act (Act ill of 1917). He is the owner of a double- storeyed house in mohalla Khalapar, Saharanpur city. He had let out the upper storey of the honse to one Mr. Jagannath Bhardwaj, Inspector of the Standard Vacuum Oil Company, at Rs. 25 per month while he himself occupied the lower portion of the house. On the 10th of June 1947, Mr. Bhardwaj vacated the premises. It appears that no intimation of 'falling vacant' of the upper portion of the house was given to the District Magistrate by Nain Sukh Das either before or after 10th of June 1947. On 6th July 1917, it appears, Mr. Bhardwaj wrote a tatter to the Town Rationing Officer, Saharan-pur, intimating to him that t...
Rex Vs. NaIn Sukh Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All345
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Provincial Government against an appellate order of acquittal of Seth Nain Sukh Das. Seth Nain Sukh Das was prosecuted for contravention of the order of the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, passed under Section 7 (1) of the United Province (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (Act in of 1947). He is the owner of a double-storeyed house in mohalla Khalapar, Saharanpur city. He had let out the upper storey of the house to one Mr. Jagannath Bhardwaj, Inspector of the Standard Vacuum Oil Company, at Rs. 25 per month while he himself occupied the lower portion of the house. On the 10th of June 1947, Mr. Bhardwaj vacated the premises. It appears that no intimation of 'falling vacant' of the upper portion of the house was given to the District Magistrate by Nain Sukh Dm either before or after 10th of June 1947. On 6th July 1947, it appears, Mr. Bhardwaj wrote a letter to the Town Rationing Officer, Saharanpur, intimating to him that ...
Mt. Jileba Vs. Mt. Parmesra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All641
Malik, C.J.1. This is a report by the office that the court-fee paid by the plaintiff-respondent on the plaint was deficient by a sum of Rs. 380 and the respondent must be asked to make good that deficiency. It is further mentioned in the report that the appellant should pay a further court-fee of Rs. 476. Ordinarily a report as regards deficiency due from an appellant is put up for orders before the Taxing Officer while the question of deficiency by the respondent is decided by the Court. Since the deficiency demanded from the appellant as well as from the respondent is based on the same ground, the whole report has been put up before us for orders. Mr. Jagdish Swarup on behalf of the respondent and Mr. Kartar Narain Agarwala on behalf of the appellant both contest the office report.2. The facts of the case are very simple. The plaintiff, Mt. Parmesra, became a widow in the year 1936 and became entitled to inherit the property of her husband. She was a minor on the date when her husba...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›