Allahabad Court April 1950 Judgments
Rameshwar Bux Singh and ors. Vs. Ganga Bux Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All598
Ghulam Hasan, J.1. This second appeal filed by the plaintiffs has been referred by a Bench to a Full Bench of three Judges for decision.2. On 14th September 1909 a possessory mortgage was made by one Lao Singh to Kallu Singh and Kamal Singh (sons of Rudan Singh) and Sheo Prasad Singh (son of Sheo Singh). Sheo Singh and Rudan Singh were brothers. The mortgage was for Rs. 925/- with interest at one per cent. per mensem, The period fixed for redemption was 20 years. Although the mortgage was possessory; it is common ground that possession was not delivered. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was filed on 15th September 1941--the last date of limitation -- by the sons of Kallu Singh against the sons of the mortgagor for recovery of Rs. 1850/- which was the double of the original consideration of the mortgage deed by sale of the entire mortgaged properts'. The representatives of the other two mortgagees were not impleaded but it was stated that the plaintiffs are the representa...
Tag this Judgment!Azim Ullah Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All610
ORDERDesai, J.1. The applicant was prosecuted on a report of a station officer of a police station under Section 60, Excise Act, on the allegation that when his house was searched by the station officer he was found to be distilling illicit liquor. Evidence was led by the prosecution to prove that he was caught distilling illicit liquor and it was accepted by the trial Court, which convicted him under Section 60 (a) and (b), Excise Act. The trial. Court sentenced him under Section 60 (b) to rigorous imprisonment for one year and refrained from passing another sentence under Section 60 (a) on the ground that the sentence (under Section 60 (b)) covered that offence as well. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, who upheld the finding of the trial Court that the applicant had distilled illicit liquor. There is a mistake in the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, inasmuch as he writes that the applicant was 'acquitted' of the charge under Section 60 (a). What th...
Tag this Judgment!R.R. Chari Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All626
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J.1.Shri R. R. Chari formerly Regional Deputy Iron and Steel Controller, U. P. Circle, Kanpur is being tried in the Court of a Magistrate first class for offences under Sections 161, 165, 465, 467, 471 and 109, Penal Code, and Section 120B, Penal Code, read with aforesaid sections and under Rules 47 (2) (a) (b) and 81, Defence of India Rules.2. On 6th December 1948, the Provincial Government sanctioned under Section 196A (1) and (2), Criminal P. C., his prosecution for the offences under Section 120B, Penal Code, and other offences.3. On 3lst January 1949, the Governor General of India sanctioned under Section 197, Criminal P. C., his prosecution for the various offences.4. The same day the Central Government sanctioned under Section 6, Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II [2] of 1947), the institution of criminal proceedings against him for acts which constituted offences under Section 161 and 165, Penal Code.5. The charge sheet against the accused was filed in Co...
Tag this Judgment!Triloki Nath Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All657
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J.1. This is a revision by Triloki Nath against the order of the Sessions Judge, Meerut confirming the conviction under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, 1946, read with Section 3, U. P. Ghee (Movement) Control Order 1845, and a fine of Rs. 200 and ordering the forfeiture of the ghee to the Government.2. The facts found against the applicant by the Courts below are that he was taking three tins of ghee to Delhi from Moradabad on 26th March 1949. I have to accept these facts which are supported by evidence. The fact that, according to the accused, he was taking these tins to Mathura in these provinces via Delhi does not affect the finding that he was carrying the ghee to Delhi in contravention of Section 3, U. P. Ghee (Movement) Control Order, 1945, which is :'No person shall carry or cause to be carried or offer for carriage by rail, road or river, any ghee from any place in the United Provinces, to any place outside the United Provinces e...
Tag this Judgment!Ballabh Dass Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All667
ORDERP.L. Bhargava, J.1. Khemchand was being prosecuted under Section 457, Penal Code. While the case against him was pending in the Court of the City Magistrate of Mathura the applicant Ballabh Das and one Ram Prasad executed a joint surety bond, under which they undertook to produce Khemchand whenever they were called upon to do so by Court during the pendency of the case, and, in the event of their failure to do so, to pay a penalty of Rs. 500 each. The case was subsequently transferred to the Judicial Magistrate of Mathura, who fixed it for hearing on 26th March 1949. The Judicial Magistrate called upon the applicant by means of a notice to produce Khemchand on the date fixed; and he failed to comply with the order. The Judicial Magistrate thereupon treated the surety bond as having been forfeited and, under Section 614, Criminal P. C., ordered the applicant to pay the penalty of Rs. 500, in terms of the surety bond. The applicant preferred an appeal against the order of the Judici...
Tag this Judgment!Fateh Bahadur Singh Vs. Ram Deo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All540
ORDERMisra, J.1. This revision arises out of proceedings for appointment of a village headman (mukhia) in mauza Nigoha, police station Payagpur, district Bahraich.2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate selected the applicant, Fateh Bahadur Singh but the Additional District Magistrate set aside that order and appointed Ram Deo, opposite party instead. Section 45 (3), Criminal P. C., empowers a District Magistrate to make such an appointment subject to the rules framed by the State Government. Against the order of the Additional District Magistrate selecting his opponent, Fateh Bahadur Singh preferred at first what he called a review application and pointed out that since the Additional District Magistrate had concurrent jurisdiction with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to make the selection, he could not set aside the initial order. The contention did not meet with favour and the review application was, therefore, rejected. Fateh Bahadur Singh now seeks to revise the order of the Additional Dis...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Sahai Umrao Singh Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All595; [1950]18ITR988(All)
Malik, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, read with Section 21, Excess Profits Tax Act. The question referred to us is in these terms:'Whether in the circumstances of this case, there is material to justify the opinion that the main purpose, for which the transaction in question was effected, was the avoidance or reduction of Excess Profits Tax Liability.'2. The facts of this case are that one Ganga Sahai had four sons, viz., Umrao Singh, Shimbhumal, Raghubir Saran and Ram Sarup. Shimbhumal had a son, Radhey Lal. Umrao Singh had three sons, namely Shib Charan Das, Tirloki Nath and Ram Richhpal. Parbhu Dayal is the son of Shib Charan Das. The family remained a joint Hindu family up to some date in the year 1920 and it used to carry on business of whole-sale cloth dealers, retail cloth dealers and of commission agents. The business was carried on in the names and styles of Firm Gangasahai Umraosingh, Firm Shimbhumal Raghubirsaran and Firm Gangasahai Ramsarup...
Tag this Judgment!State Through Ram Laut and ors. Vs. Bansu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All669
Sankar Saran, J.1. The applicants in this case have come up in revision to this Court from an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Juunpur dismissing an application that they filed before him. I propose to set out the relevant facts so that the point involved may be clearly stated.2. On 5th July 1947, one Ram Laut filed a complaint against; the applicants under Section 325 read with Section 379, Penal Code, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaunpur. On the same date, the Magistrate transferred the com-plaint to the Court of a Tahsildar Magistrate. The Tahsildar Magistrate took evidence under Section 202, Criminal P. C. and summoned the accused fixing 8th August 1947, for hearing. The case could not be taken up earlier and on 24th September 1947, the Tahsildar Magistrate examined a few witnesses for the prosecution, framed the charge and gave the applicants an opportunity to farther examine the prosecution witnesses. 10th October 1947 was fixed for this purpose...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Bhadur and ors. Vs. Bhagwati Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All660
Ghulam Hasan, J.1. This appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit for a declaration which has been decreed concurrently by the two Courts below. The suit was brought under Section 59, U. P. Tenancy Act, under the following circumstances :2. Bhagwati Prasad, plaintiff, instituted the suit against five defendants upon the allegation that certain grove plots belonged to one Baijnath Brahman, who on 26th October 1933, executed what was styled as a shankalapanama for certain charitable objects named therein. He constituted himself as the sarpanch and four persons including the plaintiff as the panchas. Half the share in the shankalapnama property was in the possession of Durgavati Debi and Brij Lal, mortgagees under a mortgage executed by Baijnath himself. Durgabati had assigned her mortgagee rights in favour of Bhagwati Prasad. Brij Lal was, therefore, the mortgagee in respect of one-quarter share of the grove plots, bat he was employed at Calcutta. Bhagwati Prasad therefore was in pos...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Dhari Pandey Vs. Nand Kumar Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All699
Agarwala, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the lower appellate Court setting aside the order of the Munsif who had rejected an application made under Section 145, Civil P. C. Certain crops belonging to the judgment' debtor-respondent were attached in execution of a decree against him and were entrusted to the care of the appellant who executed a surety bond which was accepted by the Court. Subsequently the judgment-debtor satisfied the decree by payment of the decretal amount and the execution case was struck off. The appellant, Supurdar, did not, however, return the attached crops to the judgment-debtor who thereupon applied for relief under Section 145, Civil P. C., against the appellant. The appellant objected that no application under Section 145, Civil P. C., could be made against him and the relief could be sought by a regular suit only. The trial Court accepted this contention and rejected the application.2. The lower appellate Court, however, held that an appli...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »