Allahabad Court August 1951 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.
The Administrator General Vs. the General Manager, E.i. Railway
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All815
Y. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application by the Administrator General of Uttar Pradesh for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party, the General Manager, East Indian Railway, Calcutta to pay the sum of Rs. 14,240-6-0 to the applicant. The applicant in his affidavit alleges that this sum is included amongst the assets of T. Murphy as being Provident Fund and Gratuity payable to him. The Administrator General is administering the estate of deceased T. Murphy. He called upon the Railway Administration to pay the amount to him, but the Railway Administration have refused, In the affidavit itself the applicant has admitted that T. Murphy at the time of his death left one minor son K. F. J. Murphy who is now under the guardianship of one Mr. Walsh. The applicant claims this amount as part of the estate of T. Murphy. Obviously under Sub-section (a) of Section 8, Provident Funds Act, 1925, the Provident Fund on the death of T. Murphy vested in his dependant, viz. K. F. J. Murph...
Nahar Singh Vs. Tek Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All184
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 in a suit for possession over a certain zamindari property on cancellation of an auction sale. 2. Mt. Umrao Kunwar, mother and guardian of the plaintiff respondent, executed a deed of mortgage on 25.1.1930 in favour of Balloo Mul, defendant 2, Balloo Mul brought a Suit No. 55 of 1932 in the Court of Munsif, Meerut on the mortgage against the plaintiff and his mother. This was referred to arbitration on 4-7-1932 and ultimately a decree was passed on the foot of the award made. In these proceedings the mother acted as the guardian of her minor son, now plaintiff. 3. Balloo Mul, defendant 2, sold his decree to the father of defendant l, appellant. The appellant's father then purchased the property on 4 4-1936 by putting the same to sale. Then the suit giving rise to the present appeal was filed on 2-10-1945. This relief for possession was claimed on the ground that the proceedings resulting in the award were illegal, as no permission by...
Sultan Singh JaIn Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All864
ORDERB. Dayal, J. 1. This is an application under Section 551A, Cr. P. C. for ordering the exemption of the applicant from personal attendance at the hearings of a case under Sections 420, 120B and 109, Penal Code, on the ground that the trial of the case will require a very large number of hearings and that on account of the applicant's frequent presence his business will be practically ruined.2. I have not heard the learned counsel for the parties on the merits as to how far, in the circumstances of this case, the applicant should be granted exemption, as I find that the Division Bench case of M.G. Desai v. Emperor : AIR1932All504 goes against the applicant. It was held in that case :'This Court will only act on its inherent powers where those powers can be exercised without conflict with the existing law.' It was held that the case of the applicant did not come within the provisions of Section 540A, Cr. P. C. The application for exemption was rejected and, it was also remarked :'Thi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›