Allahabad Court September 1952 Judgments
inayat Ali and anr. Vs. Natthu Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1954All18
ORDERKaul, J. 1. This is an application for revision of an order passed under Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P. C.by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shahabad (Hardotdistrict) in a case under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act. The material facts are as follows : 2. On 29-11-1950, an application was made by one Natthu Khan for redemption of a mortgage alleged to have been executed by his father Yusuf Khan in 1920 in favour of the opposite parties, Inayat Ali and Basharat Ali. A number of defences were taken to the claim for redemption. oNE of these was a total denial of the alleged mortgage-Natthu Khan contended in reply to this defence that the mortgagees had instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif Shahabad for possession of the mortgaged property on the basis of that deed of mortgage and obtained a decree in that suit in 1931. He applied for summoning the record of the case on which that decree was passed. His contention was that the original mortgage deed could be found in that record....
Tag this Judgment!Beni Madho Prasad Singh Vs. Adit and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All416
Walli Ullah, J. 1. This appeal was heard by a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court, Sinha and Wanchoo JJ., on 10-11-1947. At the close of the hearing, judgment was dictated in open Court by the learaed Judges. In the result, the appeal was allowed, the decrees of the courts below were set aside and the claim of the plaintiff-appellant was decreed with costs. Before the transcript of the judgment was signed by the learned Judges, it appears that the case was 'mentioned' to the learned Judges with the result that the transcript was not signed by either of the two learned Judges. On the contrary, at appears that at the stage of signing the transcript either one or both the learned Judges felt the necessity of having some points further clarified by further arguments from counsel. Thus on 9-12-1947, as the 'order sheet' shows, some arguments were heard but they were not finished, and it was ord Ted that the case might be listed again after a week for further arguments. After this stag...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmiratan Cotton Mills Co., Ltd., Cawnpore Vs. Commr. of Excess Profi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All65
V. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 21, Excess Profits Tax Act, read with Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act. The assessee Messrs. Laxmiratan Cotton Mills Co., Ltd., Kanpur, is a director-controlled company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, managed by its managing agents, Messrs. Beharilal Kailashpat. The company manufactures textiles at Kanpur. The share holders are either members of the family of Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat or are closely connected with them. The company in addition to employing its own capital also borrows money from banks and other sources. The chief sources for borrowing money were the Imperial Bank of India and Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat of Kanpur. The company started its operations before April 1936.2. A notice under Section 13 (1), Excess Profits Tax Act, was served on the company on 23-9-1940, and the return required by that notice was submitted to the Excess Profits Tax Officer on 15-12-1940. Subsequently on 3-2-1942, the company applied ...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar Dalmia Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All245
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. Murlidhar Dalmiya is proprietor of firm Onkarnath Nandkishoro at Kanpur. His godown was searched on 4-6-1946 and there were found 133 pieces of cotton cambric cloth, each of 10 yards sewn in the shape of 'lehangas'. None of these pieces had any marking in compliance with the directions of Clause 10 or 10B, Government of India Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1945. He was thereafter prosecuted and convicted under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules, for breach of Clauses 13 (1) (c) and 18 (2), Government of India Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1943, and Clause (4), U. P. Controlled Cotton Cloth and Yarn Dealers' Licensing Order, 1945 :2. We may quote the various clauses for whose breach the applicant has been convicted, Clause 13 (1) (c) is :'Where the markings to be made and the time and manner of marking them in respect of any class or specification of cloth or yarn have been specified under Clauses 10 or 10B no person other than the manufacturer thereo...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeo Dass Vs. Joshi Gauri Dutt and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All329
ORDERKaul, J. 1. This is an application for revision of an appellate order passed by the learned Civil Judge of Banaras granting permission to certain plaintiffs to withdraw their suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit under Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P. C. 2. The material facts lie within a short compass: One Joshi Ratan Shanker was granted a lease of some lands by the zamindar, Mt. Basant Kunwar. The rent due in respect of the lease fell in arrears and a decree for recovery of the same was obtained by the zamindar. In execution ot that decree some of the leased plots were sold at a court auction and purchased by one Baldeo Dass. Thereupon a suit was instituted by the three sons of Joshi Ratan Shanker, one of whom was a minor. It was averred that the decree for rent was fraudulently obtained, that the sale of the leased lands was set aside by the Tahsildar on deposit of the decretal amount and that this order, was subsequently set aside by the Tahsildar which he could not do for want of...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Premwati and ors. Vs. Sm. Satayawati JaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All55
Kaul, J. 1. Both the above cases relate to the same order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kanpur, and may conveniently be disposed of by one common judgment.2. The material facts lie within a short compass. Shrimati Satayawati Jain along with some other persons obtained a decree against Shrimati Premwati, who is the appellant in Execution First Appeal No. 109 of 1952 and the applicant in Civil Revision No. 713 of 1952, on 29-10-1949. It was a final decree for sale in a mortgage suit. An application for execution was made by the decree-holders on 16-2-1950. Notices fixing the date for settlement of the particulars of the sale proclamation was issued on 7-2-1952. Owing to the death of His Majesty King George VI the Courts were closed on that date and the cases fixed for that date were taken up the next day. On 8-2-1952, the judgment-debtor filed objections mentioning a number of grounds against the execution of the decree. It was complained by her that inasmuch the decree-holder had n...
Tag this Judgment!Mahfuz Ali (In Jail) Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All110
Mukerji, J.1. Mahfooz Ali, the appellant, was charged under Section 5 (2) of Act 2 of 1947, for having committed 'criminal misconduct' on 11-10-1949, by abusing his position as a head constable, for the purpose of deriving from one Shivlal pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 20 for himself by illegal and corrupt means. The learned Additional Sessions Judge of Agra convicted the appellant on the aforesaid charge and sentenced him to undergo two years' E. I. and a fine of Rs. 200, in default of payment of fine the accused was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant has preferred the aforesaid appeal from his conviction.2. The facts giving rise to his conviction briefly put were these.3. The appellant, Mahfooz Ali, was posted as a head constable at the Idgah outpost in the City of Agra at the time when he is alleged to have committed the offence with which he was charged and for which he was convicted. The complainant in this case was one Shivla...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sahai and ors. Vs. the Custodian of Evacuee Property, U.P., Luckno ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All117
Waliullah, J.1. This is an application for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Additional Custodian dated 27-2-1952 as well as the order of the Custodian General dated 4-7-1952. There are some other reliefs claimed in the application but the argument of the learned counsel before us has been confined to the question whether or not this is a fit case for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders mentioned above. There is an affidavit filed in support of the application. Mr. Gaur, the learned counsel for the applicants, has strenuously contended that it is a fit case in which this Court should issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders of the Additional Custodian as well as that of the Custodian General mentioned above. The learned counsel has pressed us hard to accept his contention that in this case his clients were not tenants of certain sir land at all, but were rather holding the plots actually in their possession as sajhidars and that...
Tag this Judgment!Shamsher Khan Vs. Sm. Siddiqunnisa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All720
ORDERMisra, J.1. This criminal revision arises out of proceedings for maintenance under Section 488, Criminal P. C. The Courts below have agreed in holding that Smt. Siddiqunnissa and her three minor children, Ilias, Ishaq and Mush-taq were entitled to get maintenance allowance of Rs. 30/- per month from Shamsher Khan, the husband of Smt. Siddiqunnissa and the father of the minors. They overruled the defence which was to the effect that the application was not bona fide; that there was no refusal on the part of the husband to maintain the wife; that he never ill-treated her or her children arid that he is an old man of 65 and has no source of income. The learned Mag-'strate accepted the version of the claimants, namely, that Shamsher Khan Used to chastise Smt. Siddiqunnissa and refused to maintain her or the children; that he has landed property, a grove and a cycle shop at Purwa and that he receives a certain amount of income from Bombay. He summed up his findings thus :'Thus going th...
Tag this Judgment!Baba Mahadeo Das Vs. Satyandra Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All85
Agarwala, J. 1. This appeal has been referred to this Pull Bench on account of a supposed conflict between two Full Benches D.N. Rege v. Kazi Muhammad Haider, 1949 ALL, L. 3, 369 (F. B.) and Mahadeo Prasad v. Jokhan Ram A. I. R. 1947 oudh 133 (F. b.), and for an authoritative decision on the point involved in the case. The facts briefly are us follows. 2. The appellant is one of the plaintiffs in the suit which has given rise to this appeal. He along with other plaintiffs, who have been arrayed as pro forma respondents, filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Banaras, for recovery of possession over four plots of land which they claimed to bo grove-land. According to the plaintiff's the original grove-holder of the plots was one Bhawani Mali who sold them to one Birja Mali in the year 1849. Birja Mali made a usufructuary mortgage of the plots to Jagat Earn Udasi by a deed dated 18-5-1851. Mahadeo Das, a successor-in-interest of Jagat Ram Udasi, treating the plots as his own prope...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »