Allahabad Court May 1949 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.
Chandra Bhal Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1949
Reported in: 1949CriLJ970
ORDERDesai, J.1. This application is directed againat an interlocutory order passed by a Magistrate rejecting the applicant sapplication for a regular trial in place of summary trial, The applicant approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri, who refused to interfere.2. On 1st May 1948, the Station Officer of Neem Gaon submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant for his proseoution under 8. 60, Excise Act, It was stated in the charge, sheet that during the search of the applicant's house liquor was recovered and that it was found on analysis to be illicit. The charge-sheet was presented in the Court of the Magistrate through the proseouting Sub-Inspector, who did not make any alteration in it. The Magistrate issued a summons against the applicant and he appeared in his Court on 27th July 1948. As the prosecution evidence was not present, the case was adjourned to 14th August 1948. On 27th July 1948, the Station Officer added a note on the back of the charge-sheet stating that he...
Basanti Devi W/O Laxmi Chand Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1949All650; 1949CriLJ991
ORDERMalik C.J.1. This case discloses an extraordinary state of affairs. A report was made on 12th March 1947, by the Tahaildar of Ghaziabad that one Gauri Shanker had ereoted a temporary building on ballis which was likely to catch fire and, as it was in the proximity of the tehsil building, there was a danger to the tehsil building and, therefore, proceedings under B. 183, Criminal F. C, should be taken against Gauri Shanker and the building demolished under the provisions of the said section. A notice was issued to Gauri Shanker, but on the date fixed for hearing he did not appear. On that date the learned Magistrate passed an order to the following effect;After service of notice be appeared only on 26th. August 1947, when he was directed to produce the order of the District Magistrate of Meerut to start the cinema. But he did not upto this day put in his appearance, nor did he produce the order of the District Magistrate of Meerut. It is, therefore, ordered, as per order in English...
Purshottam Singh Vs. Superintendent, Central Prison
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All4
Malik, C.J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court has referred the following question for decision by a bench :'Can an order under S. 8 (1) (a), U. P. Act IV [4] of 1947, be validly passed against a person, who is already in person (otherwise than under an order Under Section 3(2) of the Act) and who was not arrested with a view to ordering his detention under the Act ?' The whole case has been, however, put up before this Bench for decision under the orders of the Chief Justice, as the learned single Judge has gone out of station during the vacation.2. Mr. S.N. Dwivedi has appeared on be-half of the applicant and from the facts given by him appears that the applicant has been in lawful custody at least from 15th December 1948. The applicant was arrested on 19th November 1948, for breach of an order passed Under Section 144, Criminal P. C. He was granted bail but on 15th December 1948, he was re-arrested for breach of an order passed Under Section 8(l) (f), U. P. Maintenance of Public...
Basudeva Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1949All513; 1949CriLJ798
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an application by Shri Basudeva under Section 491, Criminal P. O. The applicant is the proprietor of firm styled 'Mahanand Ram Bajoria and Brothers' in Shahjahanpur which deals in kerosene oil. On 19th. December, 1948, the applicant was arrested and Ordered to be detained under the U. P. Prevention of Black-marketing (Temporary Powers) Act, XXII [93] of 1048. By the present application, the applicant contends that his-arrest and detention, under this Act, are illegal' and one of the grounds which has been urged is that the provisions of the Act which provide for-detention are ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature.2. The impugned Act received the assent of-the Governor General on 11th April, 1948 under Section 76, Government of India Act, 1935, as adapted, and was promulgated on 14th April, 1948. The' Preamble of the Act is as follows:Whereas it is expedient in the interest of maintenance of Public Order and supplies essential to the life-of the community to pr...
In Re: Raghubir Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1949
Reported in: 1949CriLJ852
Wali Ullah, Ag. C.J.1. I agree that this application should be dismissed. The full facts of the case are set out in the Orders of my learned brothers, Sapru and Bhargava J J , and I gene, rally agree with the reasons given by them.2. The applicant was removed from practice by an Order of the Special Bench of three Judges in miscellaneous Case No. 243 of 1946 dated 20th December 1946. On 29th July 1947, the present application for re-instatement and permission to practise was made by the applicant. It purports to be an application under Section 12(6), Bar Councils Act.2a. We have heard Mr. S. N. Verma, the learned Counsel for the applicant, at length. We have also heard Mr. Kunzru on behalf of the Bar Council and Dr. Faruqi, Government Advocate, on behalf of the Advocate-General, who have both opposed the application. Some argument has been addressed to us on the question whether the High Court acting under Section 12(6), Bar Councils Act can admit fresh evidence and, on the strength of...
NizamuddIn and ors. Vs. Mangal Sen and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1949All699
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal in a suit for partition of a 49/72 sihams share in a house. The following pedigree will elucidate the facts:Khairat Ali = Hafiz-un-Nigsa = name unknown| |-------------------- Nizamuddin,| | Defendant 1.Hashmi Begum Himayat Ali, = Wajid Ali, Defendant 5. Defendant 4|----------------| |Mt. Jhagro, Mt. Hashmat-un-Defendant 2, Nisa,Defendant 3.2. Khairat Ali in the above pedigree died in 1920, after which his widow Hafiz-un-Nisa brought a Suit No. 278 of 1921 of the Court of Munsif, Muzaffarnagar, for recovery of her dower debt against her own son and daughter, Himayat Ali and Hashmi Begum. On 9th August 1921, a compromise was effected in the suit that Hafiz-un-Nisa and Hashmi Begum would be deemed to be the absolute owners of the entire house in dispute, while the entire zamindari property left by Khairat Ali would be deemed to be owned by Himayat Ali only. It was further provided that within a month of the date of the compromise the two la...
Gangeshwara Nand Giri Vs. Som Giri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1949All718
Sapru, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal may be stated shortly. The original owner of the property in dispute, which will be found detailed at the foot of the plaint, was one Swami Sankaranand Giri of Shankar Ashram Bhemgodah, Hardwar. Shortly before his death in 1925 he made a testamentary disposition, on 13th March 1924, of his property. On his death, his chela, Parnavanand Giri, entered into possession, under that will, of the property as owner. The latter died on 10th March 1932 without leaving any chela. The plain-tiff's case is that he is the gurubhai of Parnavanand Giri and it is on the basis of that allegation that he has laid claim to the property and assets left by the latter. The plaintiff's case further is that the defendants are in unlawful possession of the property, that defendant 2 has been giving out that he is a trustee of the property in dispute in accordance with the will of Swami Sankaranand Giri, that he has a right, according to the terms laid d...
Panna Lal and ors. Vs. Gobardhan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1949All757
Agarwala, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of price of fruits of certain trees alleged to have been taken away stealthily by the defendants-appellants. The plaintiff-respondent alleged that he was a zamindar of the village, that plot No. 212 belonged to him, that the adjoining plot No. 213 was a grove of which the defendants were the grove holders, that certain trees stood in plot No. 212 and belonged to the plaintiff and that the defendants had appropriated the fruits of the trees and so were liable to pay the price to the plaintiff.2. The defence was that the trees were part of the grove standing in plot No. 213 and had been planted by the defendants and that they did not stand in plot No. 212 at all. The trial Court held that it could not be said with certainty in which plot the trees stood and that, therefore, the plaintiff had failed to prove his case. In the result it dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that pri...
Mohan Lal Huja and ors. Vs. Chawla Bank, Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1949All778
Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal by Mohan Lal Huja and some other creditors of the Chawla Bank, Ltd,, which will hereafter be referred to as the bank, against an order, dated 17th January 1949, made by a learned Judge of this Court, in exercise of the original company jurisdiction of the Court, under Rule 153, Companies Act (VII [7] of 1913).2. The Chawla Bank, Ltd., was incorporated In British India as a joint stock company, under the Indian Companies Act, in the year 1932, with its registered office at Bannu in the North-West Frontier Province. At the time of its incorporation, the share capital of the bank was Rs, 2,00,000, divided into 4,000 shares of Rs. 50 each; but in 1945 the capital was raised to Rs. 10,00,000, divided into 20,000 shares of Rs. 50 each. The paid up capital amounted to Rs 3.59,400. In course of time the bank was a flourishing concern, and was able to establish thirteen branch and pay offices at various places in the North-West Frontier Province and in the Punja...
Rex Vs. Mohd. Etizad Rasul Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1953All266
ORDER1. These contempt proceedings are closely connected with Jehangirabad Taluqa case which is being tried in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Lucknow.2. The late Maharaja of Jehangirabad. Sir Ejaz Easul Khan died on 21-5-1947. The plaintiff Kr. Shaikh Mohammad Etizad Easul Khan is the owner of Taluqa Rasulpur in his own rights. He is also the nephew of the late Maharaja and claims to be the preferential heir to the estate of Jehangirabad as against the minor defendants Jamal Rasul and Irran Easul, who claimed to be late Taluqdar's sons from his second wife Maharani Zubeda Khatoon. The late Maharaja executed a registered deed of gift in favour of Jamal Rasul in 1944 and transferred to him thereby a number of villages of which he gave possession, and mutation in respect of which was made shortly thereafter. Later, on 1-4-1945 he bequeathed his entire movable and immovable property to the minors describing both as his legitimate sons and heirs, The will was deposited with the Distr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »