Allahabad Court March 1952 Judgments
Sidh Nath Vs. Triloki Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All372
ORDERKidwai, J. 1. This revision application is filed by Lala Sidh Nath against his conviction of an offence under Section 508, Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution was that a tamarind tree belonging to the opposite party, Lala Triloki Nath, was cut in August 1948 by the son of Lala Sidh Nath. There was some trouble about it and the tree was allowed to remain where it fell. On 16-9-1949, Lala Sidh Nath removed the tree to his house. On 18-9-1949, Lala Triloki Nath sent his men to the house of Lala Sidh Nath to get back the wood which Lala Sidh Nath had taken. Thereupon, Lala Sidh Nath who was sitting at the house of Raja Sri Bam went to his house, brought a gun and went towards the house of Lala Triloki Nath shouting abuses and inviting him to come out to meet the threat. Raja Sri Ram and Lala Prag Narain tried to stop him but in vain. Thereupon Lala Bhola Nath calmed Sidh Nath down and took away the gun from his possession. 3. A written report of this incident was made at the po...
Tag this Judgment!Jiwan Singh Vs. Mazhar Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All734
ORDERP.L. Bhargava, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. and it is directed against the judgment and decree of the City Munsif of Saharanpur, dismissing the suit filed by the applicant, Sardar Jiwan Singh, under Sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (No. 3 of 1947), against Mazhar Khan, the opposite party. The applicant occupies a house, situate in the city of Saharanpur, of which the opposite party is admittedly the owner. It appears, that the City Magistrate of Saharanpur who, I am told, has been authorised by the District Magistrate of Saharanpur to perform his functions under the Act, allotted the house to the applicant and 'ordered him to get the fair rent of the house fixed by a civil Court.'Accordingly, the applicant instituted the suit which has given rise to this revision. The applicant alleged that the house had been assessed by the Municipal Board, Saharanpur, on a monthly rental of Rs. 5/8/-, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Thakur Dei Vs. Dharam Raj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All134
Kidwai, J.1. Aditya Prasad died possessed of some immoveable property. He left no issue but he left a widow Thakur Dei who succeeded to his property in May 1921, She obtained mutation of names in her favour. Thereafter on the 22nd of May, 1925, Thakur Dei in consideration of a sum of Rs. 2,000/- paid in cash and in lieu of a promise to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 5/- contained in the document, executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of Dharam Raj, defendant No. 1, Jitau, father of respondents Nos. 2 to 4, Khelan, father of respondents Nos. 5 to 9 and Ram Lal. It is agreed that these four persons were at the time nearest reversioners of Aditya Prasad. Ram Lal died and his rights were inherited by Dharam Raj and Jitau.2. In 1933 Thakur Dei instituted a suit for possession of the property which she had relinquished on the allegation that she was then a minor and that therefore the deed of relinquishment was void. Khelan did not contest the suit. The other persons did contest. Eve...
Tag this Judgment!Vidya Niwas Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All345
ORDERP.L. Bhargava 1. The applicant, Vidya Niwas, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under 8. 379, Penal Code ; and in addition to the punishment awarded to him under the Penal Code he has also been punished with whipping to receive 12 stripes under the Whipping Act. Against his conviction and sentence, he preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge oi Gorakhpur. The appeal was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur, who upheld the conviction as well as the sentences imposed upon the applicant. Now, the applicant has filed this revision. The revision was admitted on the question of sentence only.2. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that the sentence imposed upon the applicant is not only excessive but it is also illegal. The sentence imposed upon the applicant is said to be illegal, inasmuch as in addition to the sentence of imprisonment under the Penal Code, punishment of whipping has also been imposed, in direct contr...
Tag this Judgment!Matrumal Sharma and anr. Vs. the Chief Inspector of Shops and Commerci ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All773
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 228 of the Constitution praying for transfer of a pending criminal case against the petitioner from the Court of the City Magistrate to this Court. 2. The first petitioner, Matrumal Sharma is the proprietor of Sharma Restaurant in Aminabad, Luckhow. Niranjan Lal Sharma, the second petitioner is its manager. Both of themare being criminally prosecuted under Section 27, U. P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, for failure to maintain a register of attendance of employees as required by Rule 13 framed under Section 31 of the Act. 3. Section 26 provides: 'Subject to any general or special order of the State Government, an employer shall maintain such registers and records and display such notices as may be prescribed.' 4. Under Section 31, the State Government is empowered to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. It expressly confers rule-making powers with, respect to the maintenance by the employer of registers and records and to ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bharose Vs. Ajeet Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All806
1. This is an appeal by Ram Bhrose defendant 2 from a decree for ejectment passed against him and defendant 1 who is dead.2. The suit for ejectment was brought without permission of the District Magistrate on the ground that the defendant had illegally sublet the shop to a firm Har Oharan Das Hari Shankar (defendant 3), one of whose proprietors is Ganga Prasad defendant 4. The suit was contested on the ground that defendant 2 had not sublet at all and that he had entered into a partnership with Ganga Prasad and others and was in possession as one of the proprietors of the partnership. He admitted that the firm Har Charan Das Hari Shankar was in possession of the shop and carrying on business there, but claimed that he continued to be in possession as one of the partners of that firm.3. Both the Courts held that the alleged partnership between Bam Bharose appellant and Ganga Prasad and others was not proved and that in fact he had sublet the shop to the firm Har Oharan Das Hari Shankar ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Radha Kishen Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All857; [1952]22ITR104(All)
Malik, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act in which two questions are raised. The assesses filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in which 22-4-1948, was the first date fixed for hearing. Notice of this application was sent to the assessee at the address, given for service. The notice was as follows : 'Take notice that the above appeal has been fixed for hearing at 23A, Thornhill Road, Allahabad, at 10.30 A. M. on 22-4-1948.'The notice came back unserved with an endorsement by the postal authorities as follows : 'Not claimed.' The tribunal thereupon postponed the hearing to 28-7-1948, and a fresh notice in exactly similar terms was sent by registered post. This came back with the endorsement by the postal authorities as follows : 'Refused.' The Tribunal thereupon dismissed the case for default on 28-7-1948. The order of the Tribunal was as follows : 'Notice of the first hearing in this appeal was sent to the appellant by the postal address by which he...
Tag this Judgment!Mannu Lal Vs. Chakradhar Hans
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All859
Malik, C.J.1. This case raises a very short point but a point of some importance. The plaintiff was the owner of a house situate in Lucknow which had been allotted by the Rent Control Officer under the Rent Control and Eviction Act (III [3] of 1947). The plaintiff wanted to file a suit for ejectment and applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lucknow, for permission to bring a suit on 18-12-1948. The Rent Control Officer gave him requisite permission. On 12-2-1949, however, he changed his mind and withdrew the previous permission granted by him on 28-12-1948, and informed the plaintiff that he had withdrawn the said order and the plaintiff could not, therefore, file a suit for ejectment. In spite of the second order passed by the Rent Control Officer the plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment in the Court of the learned Munsif, South Lucknow, and claimed that the previous sanction granted to him was irrevocable and that the second order cancelling the same was beyond the powers...
Tag this Judgment!Baldev Das and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All937
ORDERBrij Mohan Lall, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal P. C., by the learned Sessions Judge of Banaras recommending that the convictions recorded against Baldeva Das and G.P. Manan under Section 92, Factories Act, by a learned Magistrate of Banaras be set aside. 2. Several points arise for decision. But it has been brought to my notice by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, who appears in support of the reference, that the convictions can be set aside on the question of limitation only. He points out that the offence was detected by the Inspector of Factories on 13-8-1949 but the Magistrate did not take cognizance of the case till as late as 3-12-1949. 3. It is provided by Section 106, Factories Act, that: 'No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act unless complaint thereof is made within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector.' 4. In the present case the complaint bears no date. I...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Prasad Vs. Ramesh Chander and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All851
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. Both these are appeals by the judgment-debtor against different orders in the same execution proceedings.2. One Bharat Indu died in November 1928 and his estate was taken over by the Court of Wards on behalf of his heirs and legal representatives. On 23-5-1932, the Collector, as Manager of the Court of Wards obtained a decree against the appellant. On 20-7-1934, the first application for execution was dismissed, followed by a second application dated 16-7-1937, which also was dismissed on 23-8-1937. Then a third application forexecution was made on 21-8-1940, which in its turn was dismissed on 30-9-1940. More than three years after this date, a fourth application for execution was made by the Collector on 4-5-1944. On 23-12-1944, the Estate was released pending this application. The appellant then filed an objection to the application on the ground that it was barred by time. This was met by the answer that one of the decree-holders being still a minor and the other...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »