Allahabad Court October 1950 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.
Ghanshyamdass Bhagat and anr. Vs. L. Gulab Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All624
Bind Basni Prasad J.1. This is a plff.'s appeal from the judgment of the learned Civil Judge of Agra dated 31-1-1950. The relevant facts are as follows : The plff. is the deft.s' tenant in a house situate in the City of Agra. In 1945 & 1947 the defts. unsuccessfully applied to the District Magistrate for permission to evict the plff. from the house. He made a third application in 1948 & on 22-7-1948, the District Magistrate passed the following order:'This is an application for permission to eject through the Civil Court Ghanshiamdass a tenant of the applicant's house. An application by the same parties was made in 1945 & rejected. A second application, was made again in 1947 & was rejected on 18-11-1917. The applicant himself is occupying another man's house for his business & an application has now been made for permission to eject him. Under the circumstances permission is accorded to eject him, Ghanshiam Dass through the Civil Court.'After the grant of this permission, the tenant (...
State Vs. Basdeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All44
Desai, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Shahjahanpur for enhancement of the sentence passed on Basudeo under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Bales, read with Rule 9, U. P. Kerosene Control Order, 1942, and Section 353, Penal Code. Basudeo has been fined Rs. 500 for the offence of Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Bales, and Rs. 100 for the offence of Section 353, Penal Code. He was prosecuted along with his brother Mahanand, father Kedar Nath and Munim Shankar Lal, but Mahanand, Kedar Nath and Shankar Lal were acquitted by the Magistrate. Basudeo appealed from his conviction to the Sessions Judge, who on 16-7-1948 declined to interfere with either the conviction or the sentence. The reference of the learned District Magistrate is dated 11-5-1948.2. In reply to the notice given by this Court for enhancement of the sentence Basudeo has appeared and challenged the legality of his conviction. There is practically no dispute about the facts and we were not addressed at all o...
State Vs. Ghulam Mohiuddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All475
ORDERP.L. Bhargava, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, Under section 438, Criminal P. C. The facts leading to the reference are few and simple: Ghulam Mohiuddin is being prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 188, Penal Code. When he appeared before the City Magistrate of Mirzapur for trial, he made an application to the Court alleging that the prosecution witnesses had not seen him and would not be able to identify him, and praying that, before recording their evidence, steps may be taken for his identification by the witnesses. The learned Magistrate passed the following order on the application:'This is being tried summarily. No formal identification parade is essential. In view of Ruling In re Sangiah, 49 Cr L. J. 89 : (A.I.R. (35) 1948 Mad. 113) of the Madras High Court, the application is rejected. No later Ruling has been shown to me.'2. Against this order, Ghulam Mohiuddin filed a revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge. The learned Judge ...
Gulab Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All660
Sankar Saran, J.1. The following two questions have been refd. to us by a Bench for our decision :'1. An act is alleged to have been committed by & number of specified persons, five or more in number, in furtherance of the common intention of all of them. They are prosecuted for rioting & for the commission of the alleged act in view of the provisions of Section 149, Penal Code. The Ct. acquits all except the applt. giving them the benefit of the doubt. At the same time its definite finding is that the applt. was associated with some at least of those acquitted persons in the commission of the alleged act. It accordingly convicts the applt. of the commission of the alleged act applying the provisions of Section 34, Penal Code. Can such conviction be upheld ?'2. Whether in such a case it is open to the appellate Ct. to find, there being no Govt. appeal against the acquittal of such acquitted persons, that, although it cannot interfere with such acquittal, each persons or some of them ha...
Lalli Ram Sunderlal Jhansi Vs. Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1950
Reported in: [1951]19ITR372(All)
The following question has been refereed to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act for our opinion :-'Whether, in the circumstances of the case and on a correct construction of the deed of partnership, dated the of April 3, 1945, a genuine partnership can be inferred ?'The assessee firm Lalli Ram Sunder Lal was assessed upto the assessment year 1944-45 as a Hindu undivided family firm. On the of April 3, 1944, one Ram Charan Sarogia, representing this Hindu undivided family, entered into a deed of partnership with two brothers, Ram Charan Laharia and Govind Das. The agreement of partnership laid down that Ram Charan Sarogia representing the first party and Ram Charan Laharia and Govind Das constituting the Second party would be entitled to profits and would bear the losses in equal shares. An application was presented for registration of this deed of partnership under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act during the...
Hari Singh and ors. Vs. Kallu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All149
Sapru, J.1. This is a vendee's appeal in a preemption case. The property in the suit is situate in mauza Mathurapur and is admittedly governed by the custom of pre-emption. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were co-sharers in holding No 2 of the said village in which the land, sought to be pre empted, was situate, and that they had, for that reason, a preferential right of purchase and pre-emption as against defendants 1 to 11. Their case was that defendants 12 to 16, who are the vendors in this case, had sold the property by two deeds, one dated 22-0-1943, and the other dated 77.1943, to defendants 1 to 11, who are strangers, without their knowledge. They pleaded that the deed of 22-6-1941 had been fictitiously described as a deed of gift in respect of 10 biswas of land. It was, in point of fact, part of one and the same transaction. What the vendors had according to the plaintiffs done was to sell the entire land, including the 10 biswas of land, in respect of which they bad e...
Bashir Ahmad and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All243
ORDERKidwai, J.1. According to the facts which are now established, on the night between 14 & 15 -12-1949, Bashir Ahmad & Mahmood Khan were arrested near Rly. Station Kauriala Ghat, in the District of Kheri, with a cart loaded with six bales of millmade cloth by a police party in the course of its rounds. Since the police party found an infringement of the U. P. (Supplementary) Cloth (Control of Movement) Order, 1947 inasmuch as the two persons were with this quantity of cloth within the 'Sector' as defined in that order without a permit, it sent the two accused persons & the cart to police station, Nighasan & a report was lodged.2. The police prosecuted the case & the learned Mag. found an infringement of the provisions of para. 3 of the U. P. (Supplementary) Cloth (Control of Movement) Order, 1947. He accordingly convicted them under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act of 1946 & sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 150 each. He also directed that the bales of cloth be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›