Allahabad Court August 1952 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.
Bishambhar Rai Vs. State Through Mohan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All199
ORDERBrij Mohan Lall, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Bishambhar Rai. He purchased two camels from one Mohan for Rs. 800/-. Mohan gave delivery of the said camels to Bishambhar Rai. There was some dispute about the payment of price. Mohan went to Bishambhar Rai's place during his absence and brought back the camels. He sent them to some other place obviously under the impression that Bishambhar Rai would not find clue to the said camels and would thus be prevented from creating any difficulty. Sometime later the camels disappeared. Mohan filed a complaint under Section 379, I. P. C. against Bishambhar Rai alleging that he had stolen the camels from the place to which they had been sent. The camels were recovered roaming about in a certain village. In other words, they were not recovered from Bishambhar Rai's custody. The criminal complaint filed by Mohan resulted in Bishambhar Rai's discharge. At the time of passing the order of discharge, the learned Magistrate passed a...
City Board, Mussoorie Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Ajmer, Mer ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All43; [1952]22ITR259(All)
Malik, C.J. 1. The City Board, Mussoorie, which is a Municipal Board, constituted under the U. P. Municipalities Act (NO. 2 of 1916) supplies electric energy and water outside its municipal limits at a profit. The Excess Profits Tax Officer held that on such profits derived from business carried outside its territorial limits the City Board, Mussoorie, is liable to pay excess profits tax. The City Board contested this position and mainly relied on the definition of the word 'person' in Section 2(17), Excess Profits Tax Act. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held against the City Board and on an application made by the Board the following questions have been referred to us under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act road with Section 25, Excess Profits Tax Act:'(i) Whether the applicant's income arising from the supplies of electric energy and water outside its own jurisdictional area, is chargeable to excess profits tax under the first proviso to Section 4, E. P. T. Act, 1940, read with Claus...
Prem Shankar Pandaya Vs. U.P. Provincial Co-operative Bank Ltd. and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All51
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. Prem Shankar Pandaya applies for the issue of directions, orders or writs in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari declaring that the order of allotment passed on 16-3-1950 in respect of house No. cK/36/7 situate in Chowk Banaras was invalid and illegal, and directing the opposite parties, viz., the U. P. Provincial Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Shri Chunni Lal allottees and the Assistant Kent Control and Eviction Officer, Banaras, and the Rent Control? and Eviction Officer, Banaras, not to take any steps or action on the basis of the allotment order,2. The facts leading to this application are that the applicant is the owner of the house in suit and had let it to the Bharat Bank Ltd., of Delhi. He himself occupied another rented house. The house was let in 1943 under a lease for five years. The lease was renewed in 1948 and was to expire in January 1958. The applicant, however, persuaded the rentee, the Bharat Bank Ltd. of Delhi, to vacate the house in O...
Sadal and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All95
ORDERMisra, J. 1. This criminal revision arises out of a, summary trial at which the applicants Sadal, Manna and Chiddan were convicted of an offence under Section 174/2, District Boards Act, for contravention of bye-law No. 1 of the District Board, Rae Bareli, published at pp. 352-63, part 3, U.P. Gazette dated 19th August 1950, The trial was a summary one and the conviction was based upon admission of the accused to the effect 'that they slaughtered five bullocks at the Kanchana slaughter house within the limits of the District Board, Rae Bareli. The learned Magistrate found the accused guilty but released them under Section 3, First Offenders Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, Sadal, Manna and Chiddan went up to the Court of Session but their application was rejected and they have now approached this Court under Section 439, Criminal P.C. A number of technical arguments have been urged on their behalf. They are: (a) That the bye-law is ultra vires the District Boards Act, (...
Maiku and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All749
Brij Mohan Lall, J.1. This is an appeal by six per-sons, viz., Maiku, Pusa, Mata Din, Sobha Ram, Nand Kishore and Hari Shankar, who have Keen convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad under Sections 147 and 428/149, Penal Code. Under the former section every one of them has been sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and under the latter to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. The sentences are to run concurrently.2. Mata Din (appellant 3) is a Patwari, while Nand Kishore (appellant 5) is his brother. Sobha Ram and Hari Shankar (appellants 4 and 6 respectively) are their nephews. All of them are Brahmins. The remaining two appellants are Chamars by caste.3. The prosecution case is that the appellants along with a large number of persons who are said to have numbered one thousand approximately, formed an unlawful assembly and that, in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly, they cut Pokhpal's crop and also pulled down the chh...
Pati and ors. Vs. Dubari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All144
Malik, C.J.1. The applicants, who are four an number, were convicted by the Panchayati Adalat Kaundhiara in Pargana Arail, District Allahabad, under Sections 426, 447, 504 and 506, Penal Code and a fine under each section in the amounts of Rs. 25/-, Rs. 20/-,. Rs. 15/- and Rs. 15/- respectively was imposed on each of the applicants. Pati, applicant, was further convicted under Section 323, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/-. The case for the prosecution was that the four accused had cut and removed the crop belonging to the complainant and when he protested against their illegal action they assaulted him. The accused, on the other hand, claimed that the field belonged to them and that they had sown the crop and were not guilty of any illegal act in reaping the same. On a revision in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karchana, the Magistrate was of the opinion that the accused were wrongly convicted under Sections 447, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and he set aside their ...
Badri Prasad and ors. Vs. Shri Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All323
Malik, C.J.1. The Panchayati Adalat disposed of this case by an order passed before June 1950. There was a revision filed in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phulpur, who on 3-6-1952, came to the conclusion that as only four Panches had decided the case and appended their signatures on the order, in place of five, the judgment of the Panchayati Adalat was invalid in view of Section 49, Panchayat Raj Act. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to Section 77A of the Amending Act which lays down that it was not necessary for all the five Panches appointed to a Bench constituted under Section 49 of the Act to be present at all the sittings nor wag it necessary for all the five Panches to sign the judgment before it was delivered by the Panchayati Adalat. This amending section has been given retrospective effect, but it cannot reopen orders or decisions which had already been made. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate had disposed of the case on 3-6-1952, before the amendment and his o...
Budhu Ram Vs. Peare Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All916
Malik, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order passed by the District Magistrate of Mirzapur under Section 3, U. P. Temporary Control of Eent and Eviction Act (No. in of 1947) giving the opposite party permission to file a suit for ejectment of the applicant from certain premises given to him on rent. The section sets out certain grounds on which a landlord can file a suit for ejectment of his tenant, but if the grounds specified in the section do not exist a suit for ejectment can only be filed if permission to file such a suit is given by the District Magistrate. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that accommodation available in the cities was so limited that it gave the house-owners an opportunity to rack-rent their tenants and harass them in various other ways. The Legislature, therefore, stepped in with certain legislations, one of which was the U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act. It fixed the amount of rent w...
Parasram Shukul Vs. Bindeshari Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All33
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is a mortgagor's petition in revision from the judgment, dated 15th May 1948, passed by the learned District Judge of Gorakhpur upholding the judgment dated 15th April 1946, given by the learned Sub-divisional Officer of Deoria. It arises out of proceedings under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The relevant facts are as follows :On Jeth Sudi 15, 1881 A. D. a usufructuary mortgage in respect of an agricultural plot was made by the applicant's ancestors to the opposite parties' predecessors. On 1st March 1944, that is to say, more than sixty years after the date of the mortgage, the application for redemption was filed. The applicant contended that in the year 1911, there was an acknowledgment of the mortgage and so the case was saved from the operation of the bar of limitation. It was further contended that according to the provisions of Section 9, U. P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940, there was a fresh start of limitation when that Act came into fo...
Radhey Shyam Tandon Vs. the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All57
Malik, C. J.1. The applicant, Radhey Shyam Tandon, is a resident of Shahjahanpur and is engaged by a number of dealers of Shahjahanpur to look after their cases before the Sales Tax Officer, Judge (Appeals), Judge (Revisions) and Sales Tax Commissioner, U. P. In August or September 1951, he wanted to appear before the Judge (Appeals) and in November 1951 before the Judge (Revisions) and claimed the right to be heard by them, but his prayer was rejected. He has thereupon filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution and claimed that under the Rules framed under the Sales Tax Act (U. P. Act 15 of 1948, as amended by the U. P. Amendment Act 25 of 1948) he has a right to appear and plead on behalf of the merchants whose cases are pending before the Judge (Appeals) or the Judge (Revisions). Reliance is placed by learned counsel on Rule 77A which reads as follows :'Unless otherwise provided in the Act or the rules anything which is by the Act or the rules requited or permitted...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »