Allahabad Court July 1952 Judgments
The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. S.M. King and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All1
Bind Basni Prasad, J. 1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal arising out of a matrimonial suit for judicial separation. The facts are as follows : On 30th January 1951, Mrs. King brought a suit against her husband, S.M. King, who was an engine driver in the East Indian Railway, praying for a decree for judicial separation, alimony and custody of the children and order for their maintenance. After the progress of the suit up to a certain stage, a compromise was reached between the parties and it was filed in the Court on 17th July 1951. The relevant terms of the compromise were as follows :'(a) That both the petitioner and the respondent have agreed to go to U. K. together or wherever it may be so decided to live together with their children. (b) That out of the sum of Rs. 18,450 to the account of the respondent's provident fund money in the Railway, about which an injunction was issued to the Railway by this Hon'ble Court, the respondent agrees to give Rs. 13,000 to the petitioner includin...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo and ors. Vs. Satya Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All36
ORDERBeg, J.1. This is a revision application against the order of the learned temporary (Additional) Sessions Judge of Gonda setting aside the order of discharge passed by Sri Gopal Lal Shah, Special Magistrate, Gonda. The case arose out of a complaint made by one Satya Narain against five accused persons, namely Mahadeo, Lalta, Chhedi, Mata Prasad and Pearey for having committed offences under Sections 147, 323, 452 and 395, Penal Code. It would appear that Satya Narain complainant had a shop in village Paraspur. The landlord of the building was Mahadeo accused and the rent of the said shop was RS. 2-8-0 per mensem. The complainant was carrying on the profession of a goldsmith in that shop and kept some gold and silver also in the shop in connection with his work. According to the allegations of the complainant, on 17-10-1950, a person alleging himself to be a peon of the civil Court came to the shop and told him that he had come to eject him and to deliver possession of the shop to ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Banarsidas and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All58
ORDERDesai, J.1. The question for decision in this ease is whether it was open to the Magistrate Shri N. C. Jain, who is now trying the ease, to resume proceedings from the stage at which they were left by the Magistrate Sim N. B, Singh. The case was first heard by Shri N. B. Singh who recorded all the evidence and was transferred before he could hear the argument. The case then went to the Court of Shri G. Section Seth who decided to resummon the witnesses and recommence the trial. He issued summonses against the prosecution witnesses but before he could examine any evidence, the case was transferred from his Court and went to the Court of Shri N. C. Jain.Shri N. C. Jain has decided to resume proceedings from the stage at which they were left by Shri N. B. Singh, hear the argument and pass judgment. The learned Sessions Judge, at the instance of the prosecution, has made this reference recommending that Shri N. C. Jain be directed to resummon the witnesses and recommence the trial as ...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through the Chief Secretary, G ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All959
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is an applica-tion under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the State of Uttar Pradesh and Sri M. M. Ansari, District Judge of Unnao, who has been appointed also as an arbitrator under Section 6, Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947 (Act 17 of 1947). The contention is that the appointment of Sri M. M. Ansari as an arbitrator in the dispute for compensation which has arisen between the applicant and the State of Uttar Pradesh is illegal and ultra vires. The prayer, therefore, is for the issue of a writ of prohibition against the opposite parties restraining them from proceeding further with the proceedings for the determination of the amount of compensation payable to the applicant. The relevant facts are as follows :2. The applicant is the owner of the premises known as 'Gopal Niwas' situated in the Civil Lines of the city of Unnao. It was requisitioned by the District Magistrate of Unnao on 13-8-1943, under E. 75A, Defence of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sital Prasad Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All101
ORDERBeg, J. 1. The petitioner Sital Prasad was prosecuted under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1940, read with Section 3, U. P. FoodGrains Control Order of 1949. He was convicted by the trial Court and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, or in default to undergo two months further rigorous imprisonment. He filed an appeal against his conviction before the learned Sessions Judge of Eae Bareli who upheld the order of conviction but reduced the sentence by quashing the sentence of imprisonment maintaining only the sentence of fine of Rs. 500 or in default two months' rigorous imprisonment; the trial Court had also passed an order that the food grains seized should be forfeited and its price credited to the Government. This order of forfeiture was also maintained by the learned appellate Court.2. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner as disclosed by the first information report as well as by the evidence produced in t...
Tag this Judgment!Mutsaddi Lal Vs. Government-general in Council Through the General Man ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All897
V. Bhargava, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought against the East Indian Railway for non-delivery of goods. In the grounds of appeal two main questions of law have been raised. One question is that no notice under Section 77, Railways Act was required because this was a case of non-delivery and not a case of loss, destruction or deterioration of goods. The second question raised is that the suit is not barred by time because limitation began to run from the date on which the Railway intimated their failure to deliver the goods and not from the date on which the goods should have been delivered in the ordinary course. These are both important questions of law, and I understand that the first question is up for decision before a Full Bench of this Court in Governor-General in Council v. Mahabir Bam, First Appeal No. 525 of 1944. (ALL). On this first question there is already a conflict of opinion in views expressed in two cases both of which were decided by Division Benc...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Nath Vs. Mool Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All62
Sapru, J.1. This is a tenant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from a shop situate in the city of Agra. The suit for ejectment was brought by the plaintiff with the permission of the Additional District Magistrate. The suit was resisted by the tenant on various groundBut the ground with which we are concerned in the present case is that the landlord was not competent to bring the suit for ejectment inasmuch as the District Magistrate or any person authorised by him had not given the permission requisite for bringing a suit under Section 3, U. P. (Temporary) Control of Bent and Eviction Act, 1947. Both the Courts decreed the plaintiff's suit and held that there was no force in the objection that the Additional District Magistrate was not competent to authorise the plaintiff to institute a suit for ejectment under Section 3 of the Act. The defendant has now come up in appeal to this Court.2. The question for consideration is whether the District Magistrate as contemplated unde...
Tag this Judgment!Dulla Vs. the State Through Dwarka and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All341
ORDERBeg, J. 1. This is a reference by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge of Unnao recommending that the order passed by Sri Niaz Ulla, bub-Divisional Magistrate, Hasanganj Unnao, under Section 145, Criminal P. C., directing that the disputed property be released in favour of the opposite parties Dwarka and others be set aside.2. It would appear that the applicant Dulia had presented an application under Section 145, Criminal P. C., against Dwarka and others in respect of plot no. 138 detailed therein alleging that the plot in question was his tenancy land and that he was in possession of it. After calling for a police report the trial Court passed an order on 13-11-1950, that the said plot and the crop standing thereon be attached. Both the parties were called upon to file written statements in the case. Each of them claimed to be the tenant in possession of the plot in dispute. They were required to produce evidence in support of their case.3. The learned Magistrate minutely examin...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotey Lal Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All913
Waliullah, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued calling for the record of the case and for quashing the allotment order, dated 7-7-1952, as also another order dated 15/16-7-1952, by which the petitioner was ordered to vacate thehouse within three days. There is an affidavit in support of the application. We have heard Sri B. D. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, at length. 2. The events that have happened in the present case are perfectly clear and they are these: The petitioner purchased the house in question in February 1952. Then the house was in occupation of a tenant. Some time in May 1952, the tenant, who was a Government servant was under orders of transfer to another district. The petitioner appears to have given an intimation to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer about the impending vacation of the house by the tenant. A request was also made that the house might be allotted to the petitioner....
Tag this Judgment!Shamsher Bahadur Singh and ors. Vs. Lal Batuk Bahadur Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All147
Malik, C.J. 1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendants against a decree for redemption passed by the learned Civil Judge of Pratapgarh. The predecessor-in-interest of one Raja Bhairon Bux Singh had executed a mortgage of the zamindari rights in village Tina in favour of the Allahabad Bank Ltd. The Allahabad Bank filed a suit on the mortgage, obtained a decree and put the village to sale. It was purchased in auction in the year 1905 by the Rani of Pratapgarh. She obtained possession on 4th of February 1906. On 12th June 1891, Raja Bhairon Bux Singh had mortgaged to one Harpal Singh five plots Nos. 139, 190, 196, 197 and 198 measuring 22 bighas 19 biswas and 9 biswansis. This mortgage was subsequent to the mortgage in favour of the Allahabad Bank Limited and the Allahabad Bank Limited in the suit filed by it for sale had impleaded Harpal Singh as a subsequent mortgagee. Harpal Singh, however, made no attempt to redeem the mortgage and the village property was sold as menti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »