Allahabad Court September 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.
RamdIn and ors. Vs. the State Through Bahadur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All554
ORDERChandiramani, J.1. This is an application in revision against the appellate order of Shri Raja Ram Mehra, Civil and Sessions Judge of Sitapur.2. It appears that the applicants were prosecuted before a Special Magistrate, first class, Sitapur, under Sections. 427, 352 and 447, Penal Code, on the allegation that they had forcibly ploughed up certain fields belonging to the master of the complainant on 3-9-1949, at about 5 A.M., thereby causing loss of Rs. 500 and that when the complainant protested the applicants chased him and he had to save himself by flight. The learned Magistrate did not find the charge under Section 427, proved and acquitted the applicants, but he convicted them under Sections. 352 and 447, Penal Code, and fixed them. The applicants went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge and urged before him that in view of their convictions under Section 352 and 447, Penal Code, the case was clearly one triable exclusively by the Panchayati Adalat under Sections 52 ...
Manohar Das Kedar Nath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1950
Reported in: [1950]18ITR914(All)
The following three questions have been referred to us under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act :-'(1) Whether there was any material on record which established that the dharmada or charity was a partner under the deed dated 27th February, 1942 ?(2) Whether on a proper construction of the deed dated 4th February, 1937, the charity was a partner particularly in view of the construction placed upon it in the agreement dated 11th July, 1941 ?(3) Whether the constitution of the firm under the deed of the 27th February, 1942, was legally defective and whether this firm could not be registered under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act ?'One Kedar Nath, who was carrying on business, entered into partnership with his adopted son, Gopi Krishna, and one Hari Das, a stranger, on the 27th March, 1935. This partnership was registered by the Income-tax Officer under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act. In the year 1937 there was a change and a fresh deed was executed on the 4th February,...
The State Vs. Kaptan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All118
1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of Kaptan Singh by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge of Sitapur on appeal. It appears that the Excise Inspector Jagat Narain P. W. 3 of Sitapur had information that the accused Kaptan Singh was in the habit of smuggling opium and he would be passing through Sitapur. Accordingly on 25-5-1949, a watch was kept on the trains and buses coming from Shahjehanpur but he did not come. On the 26th May the accused was seen getting off from the Shahjehanpur train at Sitapur railway station at about 9 a.m. and settling down under a nim-tree on one side of the platform. On receiving information of this from his excise peons the Excise Inspector immediately went to the spot with the Station Master and some other witnesses. Kaptan Singh was found lying down with a small bundle under his head as a pillow. After giving their personal search Kaptan Singh was searched. The bundle on being opened contained in a piece of cloth a dibia inside ...
Sampat Thakurai and ors. Vs. Gomti Thakurai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All124
V. Bhargava, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession over four plots Nos. 352, 353, 354 and 359. The plaintiffs-respondents claimed possession as transferees of this land from one Kodai by means of a sale deed, dated 7-12-1944 and alleged that, after this sale-deed, the appellants had dispossessed them on 22-12-1944, It was also alleged that they had cut some trees and removed some materials from this land.2. The facts found by the lower appellate Court are that the land covered by these four plots was once upon a time the joint property of one Dashrath and the predecessors in-interest of the appellants. The partition took place in the year 1905 when three pattis were formed. Dashrath was given his zamindari in Patti Tulshi. He had no share in the other two pattis which were named as Patti Niwaz and Batti Baran, These four plots fell in these two latter pattis in which Dashrath had no right riots Nos. 352, 353 and 354 were allotted to Patti Ba...
Kotwaleshwar Prasad Vs. Abdul Shakoor and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All356
P.L. Bhargava, J. 1. This is an application in revision, under Section 75, Provincial Insolvency Act (v [5] of 1920). The facts which have given rise to the application are these: On the application of certain creditors Kotwaleshwar Prasad, the applicant, was adjudged an insolvent by the Insolvency Judge of Kanpur. On 18-1-1939 the opposite-party, Abdul Shakoor, Abdul Rashid and Abdul Waheed, filed an affidavit affirming that the insolvent had executed certain pronotes in their favour; and they prayed that the debts due thereunder be entered in the schedule of debts. The insolvent filed a counter-affidavit, on 21-1-1939, asserting that the debts were fictitious. On 8-11-1940, the Official Receiver of Kanpur, on the basis of the affidavit and the counter-affidavit filed before him, accepted the debts and made an order that they may be entered in the schedule. Against the order of the Official Receiver the insolvent preferred an appeal to the Insolvency Judge, who, on 14-12-1942, made an...
Sri Krishen and anr. Vs. Radha Kishen and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All652
Agarwala, J.1. This is an application in revision & has arisen under the following circumstances :2. The applicants made an application for the setting aside of an award under Section 33, Arbitration Act, & the application was allowed 'ex parte' because the opposite-parties were not present. Later on the 'ex parte' order was set aside & a fresh date for final hearing was fixed. Several adjournments of the date fixed for hearing were made at the instance of the applicants & the last date so fixed was 19-5-1947. On this date also, the applicants were absent while the opposite parties were present & the Court passed the following order:'The plffs. are absent, the defts. are present ready to proceed. This was a date which was fixed for hearing after the plffs. had already sought an adjournment. Hence the suit decided under Order 17, Rule 3, Civil P. C.; Order. The suit be dismissed with costs.'3. The plffs. then applied to the Court for setting aside the 'ex parte' order passed on 19-5-194...
Indian Sugar Mills Association Through Its President Shri Hari Raj Swa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All1
ORDER1. This is an application on behalf of the Indian Sugar Mills Association through its President Shri Hari Raj Swarup under Article 226 of the Constitution for the following reliefs :'It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue writs in the nature of Mandamus, Prohibition, or such other writ or order as the Court may consider proper, restraining the opposite parties from enforcing Notfn. No. 1425(ST) (II) XVIII-13(ST)-50, dated 5-7-1950, or pass such other order as the Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case.'2. This relief is claimed mainly against the State of Uttar Pradesh and certain officers of the State as also against three Labour Federations, the U. P. and Bihar Sugar Mills Workers Federation, the U. P. and Bihar Chine Mill Mazdoor Federation and the. National Sugar Mill Workers Federation.3. Some dispute had arisen between the labourers working in sugar mills and certain sugar factories in this Province and the Government purported to ap...
Ram Adhar Misra Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All18
Harish Chandra, J.1. In these criminal Miscellaneous cases the point that arises is whether an order of detention passed under Section 3, Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV [4] of 1950) which does not specify the periods of detention is valid. In the case of M. M. Bashir v. State : AIR1951All357 a learned single Judge of this Court took the view that such an order was not legally valid. He has based his finding on the analogy of the sections of the Penal Code which prescribe punishments for various offences. It is pointed out that although in all these sections only the maximum periods of imprisonment to which the offender may be sentenced are specified, still Courts while convicting offenders under these sections pass sentences of imprisonment upon them for definite terms. In these sections the words generally used are to the effect that the offender 'shall be punished with imprisonment.... which may extend to....' These words, in my view, indicate that the sentence of imprisonmen...
Ram Cherey Vs. Baba Ram Priya Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All435
ORDERMisra, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bahraich in a cage under Section 133, Criminal P. C. The recommendation is that the order of Sari Farhat Ali, Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Nanpara dated 16-4-1950 be set aside and the matter be dealt with according to law.2. The facts are not in dispute. The learned Magistrate's predecessor, Shri J. N. Pradhan passed a preliminary order on 18-1-1950, on the complaint of Ram Cherey alias Ram Charan calling upon Baba Ram Priya DAS, opposite-party, to remove certain obstructions which, according to the evidence before the learned Magistrate, appeared to encroach upon a public pathway in village Rupaidith. He was given, in pursuance of the provisions of Clause (1) of Section 133, Criminal P. C., the option to appear before the Court on 27-1-1950, and to make a motion for setting aside or modifying the order, if he thought fit. On the date fixed, however, the notice was not returned to the Court after service a...
Raja Ram Vs. Bishnath Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All432
1. Raja Ram, appellant, and his brother, Gaya Prasad, respondent 7 instituted a suit against the other respondents for partition of property belonging to the family. They obtained a preliminary decree for partition. In that suit the title and joint possession of the appellant was admitted. Subsequently, they applied several times to the civil Court for possession in pursuance of that preliminary decree, but that possession was refused, finally on 22-8-1933.2. Raja Ram then took proceedings in the revenue Court. He applied first for mutation of names but his application was dismissed on 28-2-1934. He subsequently made another application also for mutation of names, but that too was dismissed and so was his appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer.8. On 9-6-1936, he applied for partition of the revenue-paying property in the Revenue Court but that application was also dismissed. Finally he made an application for correction of papers which was dismissed on 18-10-1943, on an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »