Allahabad Court November 1952 Judgments
Suraj Mal Vs. the Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All264
Bind Basni Prasad, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution arising out of an appeal which has been decided by the Hon'ble Board of Revenue of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). The relevant facts are that a suit under Section 59, U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant and opposite party NOS. 3 to 7 claiming that he was the sole tenant of the land in dispute. The applicant contended that he was a joint tenant with opposite parties NOS. 2 to 5. Opposite party NOS. 7 and 8 were the zamindars. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but on appeal the Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and decreed the suit holding that opposite party no. 2 alone was the tenant of the land in dispute.The applicant filed second Appeal no. 691 of 1949-50 before the Board and it came up for hearing on 15-3-1951, before Sri T. N. Srivastava, one of the Judicial Members of the B...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Karan Bahadur Asaf Jahi and anr. Vs. Sm. Shahzad Kunwar and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All359
Kaul, J. 1. This was an appeal filed by the two plaintiffs, namely, Hon'ble Rajman Raja Dharam Karan Bahadur Asaf Jahi and Shri Thakur Radha Manoharji Maharaj Birajman. The first plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal. His legal representatives were brought on the record and the appeal has been continued by them.2. The facts giving rise to the suit which has resulted in the present appeal are as follows:3. So far back as 1865, one Rani Mata Bibi, a rich lady belonging to Hyderabad, visited Mathura on a pilgrimage. While there, she purchased a house in Bindraban from one Gosain Bhajan Lal on 30-9-1865. Mata Bibi constructed a small temple in the said house and installed therein a deity known as Shri Thakur Radha Manoharji Maharaj. On 25-2-1869, Rani Mata Bibi executed a deed of gift relating to the house, the temple therein, and the idol installed in the said temple in favour of her brother's son Raja Inderjit. He was constituted the owner of the property and directed to arran...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath NaraIn Mathur Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All352
Sapru, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution which has been presented to this Court by a Railway clerk who has been given notice by the Railway authorities that he will have to retire on the attainment of 55 years of ago.2. Now, our attention has been drawn to a recent change in the State Railway Establishment Code, vol. II. Sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 2046 of that 'Code lays down that :'A ministerial servant who is not governed by Sub-clause (b) may be required to retire at the age of 55 years, but should ordinarily be retained in service, if he continues efficient, up to the age of 60 years. He must not be retained after that age except in very special circumstances, which, must be recorded in writing, and with the sanction of the competent authority.'3. The point which has been urged is that a right has been conferred under this rule on an employee to be retained in service till the age of 60. That right, however, is subject to the reservation that he must b...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Prasad Vs. Kewal Krishna and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All441
Brij Mohan Lall, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff against a decree of the learned second Civil Judge of Kanpur who has affirmed a decree of the learned city Munsif of that place. The latter had dismissed the appellant's suit with costs.2. It appears that the appellant was the tenant of a house. One Gaya Prasad made an application to the House Allotment Officer of Kanpur praying that the house which was in the occupation of the appellant be allotted to him. On that petition the appellant made an endorsement to the effect that he would vacate the house on 30-11-1951. One Kewal Krishna, who was also anxious to get a house for himself, appeared on the scene and he too made an application for the allotment of the said house to him.When the appellant came to know of Kewal Krishna's application, he intimated to the House Allotment Officer that he did not intend to vacate the house. The result was that the said officer rejected both the applications. Thereafter the appellant left th...
Tag this Judgment!The Banarsi Stores Vs. President of the Union of Indian Republic for I ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All318
Chaturvedi, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 16,220-14-6.2. The plaintiff despatched 43 silk saris from Kashi railway station to Howrah railway station on 5-10-1945. The plaintiff was the consignor as well as the consignee. The saries were loaded in a passenger train known as the 14 Down Upper India Express, and a partner of the plaintiff's firm, by name Raghunath Prasad, went in the same train by which the saris were despatched. This parcel was found missing at Howrah and was not delivered to Raghunath Prasad at Howrah after the arrival of the train at that station. There was a lengthy correspondence after this but the parcel was not delivered at all. Hence the suit.3. The plaintiff claimed us. 14,278-1-3 as price of the 43 saris despatched by him, RS. 1,289-11-3 as interest on the above amount at Rs. 9 per cent. and RS. 653-9-3 as expenses incurred in coming and going to Calcutta in connection with the steps taken for obtaining delivery ...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Shankar and Sons Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (General Manager, E.i. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All446
Brij Mohan Lall, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge of Moradabad staying, under Section 34, Arbitration Act, (10 of 1940), a suit instituted by him against the Union of India.2. The appellant is a joint Hindu family firm carrying on the business of contractors. It entered into a contract to supply large quantities of stone boulders and stone chips to the East Indian Railway at railway station Kansrao. Some differences arose between the appellant and the railway authorities. Certain letters were exchanged between them, but they served only to widen the gulf between the two. Eventually, the railway authorities cancelled the contract, removed the appellant's name from the list of approved contractors and circulated that decision to all the Station Masters with the result that the appellant became debarred from securing any contract from the railway administration in future. Thereupon, it instituted the suit which has given rise to t...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Ram Kali Vs. Pahilwan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All331
V. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a Second Appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant and the plaintiff-respondent for possession of certain properties against the defendants-respondents. 2. The property in suit admittedly belonged, once upon a time, to one Dharam Singh. The plaintiff-appellant came to the Court with the allegation that, after the death of Dharam Singh, there was a partition between his sons and this property came to the separate share of Indar Singh so that Indar Singh became the sole owner of this property. Indar Singh having died, the plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to possession of this property as daughters of Indar Singh who died leaving no sons or widow. The defendants respondents are all collaterals of Indar Singh and they, or some of them, would be the reversioners of Indar Singh on the death of the two plaintiffs. Both the lower Courts have held that there had been a partition by virtue of whichIndar Singh had become the sole owner of...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta National Bank Ltd. Vs. Rahmat Ali Fateh Ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All452
1. This is an appeal from the order dated 3-1-1952, passed by the learned Civil Judge of Allahabad in which the dispute is about certain aeroscraps which were attached before judgment. The material facts are as follows : 2. On 17-12-1947, the Calcutta National Bank Limited, which is the appellant before us, brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 42,753/13/3 against one Qudratullah and his son, Rahmat Ali Fateh Ullah. The latter is the respondent before us. The bank's case was that the father and the son were carrying on business jointly and while the father borrowed the money from the bank the son was a guarantor and both of them pledged the aero-scraps which they had bought from the Defence Department. Along with the plaint, the bank filed an application for attachment before judgment. In the affidavit which was filed in support of the application it was alleged that the aeroscraps were the property of both the defendants. It was also alleged that the defendants were trying to dispose...
Tag this Judgment!Jian and ors. Vs. Sudhanshu Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All540
ORDERP.L. Bhargava, J. 1. This is an application in revision. It arises out of proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The proceedings were initiated by Sudanshu Ku-mar against Jian and others, who have filed this application before me. The complainant alleged that he was in possession of a plot of land No. 140/1, situate in village Dirwa, police station Itaunja, district Lucknow, and the opposite parties were attempting to dispossess him from the said plot. 2. The trial Court found that Sudanshu Ku-mar was in possession of the plot in dispute and directed that he should be put in possession thereof. This order was not properly worded. Having found that Sudanshu Kumar was in possession, the Magistrate should have directed that he should continue in possession of the plot in dispute until eviction therefrom in due course of law and all disturbance of possession should have been forbidden until such eviction. 3. The matter was taken in revision to the Court of Session and the learned Se...
Tag this Judgment!Makhan Lal JaIn and anr. Vs. the Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All326; [1953]23CompCas100(All)
ORDERBrij Mohan Lall, J.1. This is an application under Sections 153C and 153D recently inserted in the Companies Act (7 of 1913) by the amending Act (52 of 1951). The petitioners are two share-holders in the Amrit Banaspati Company Limited, Ghaziabad, here-after described, for brevity's sake, as the company. They have made various allegations of mismanagement and foul play against the company, its Directors and Managing Agents. But it is unnecessary to go into those allegations at this stage because a preliminary objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the opposite parties and the petition fails, in my opinion, on that preliminary ground alone.2. It is contended on behalf of the opposite parties that the requirements of Sub-section (3) of Section 153C have not been complied with. The relevant portion of this sub-section reads as follows :'(3) No application under Sub-section (1) shall be made by any member, unless-- (a) in the case of a company having a share capital, the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »