Allahabad Court September 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.
Satdeo Pandey Vs. Baba Raghav Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All419
Dayal, J.1. A preliminary objection was taken at the hearing of this petition to the effect that this Court had no jurisdiction to take proceedings for contempt of the Court of the Assistant Collector, first class, with respect to proceedings pending before it for the correction of papers under Section 40, Land Revenue Act (Act 3 of 1901).2. Section 2, Sub-section (1), Contempt of Courts Act (12 of 1926) is:'Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) the High Courts of Judicature established by Letters Patent shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempt of Courts subordinate to them as they have and exercise in respect of contempts of themselves.'The contention for the opposite party is that the Court of an Assistant Collector, first class, under the Land Revenue Act is not subordinate to the High Court and that, therefore, this Court cannot take action with respect to contempts committe...
The U.P. Government Vs. Firm Brij Mohan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All96
Sapru, J. 1. The judgment-debtor in this case is the Uttar Pradesh Government and the appeal has been preferred on its behalf. In 1946 the respondent firm filed a suit No. 7 of 1940, against the Government of U.P. for damages and the price of certain goods seized by that Government. A decree was passed in favour of the firm for a sum of Rs. 35,000 and odd. An appeal is pending in this Court. Baring the pendency of the appeal the firm applied for the execution of the decree. It also applied for the attachment of a sum of Rs. 23,000 deposited by the Government in the Ghazipur Treasury in its name. Objections were raised both to the execution of the decree and the attachment of the money by the Government, These objections were disallowed by the Court below and the Uttar Pradesh Government has come up in appeal to this Court.2. The first point which has been urged on behalf of the appellant is that it was incumbent on the Court passing the decree to specify in the decree the time for paym...
Ramesh Chandra Chaube Vs. Principal BipIn Behari Intermediate College, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All90
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. Theapplicant Ramesh Chandra Chaube was admittedas a student of the 1st year Intermediate Class in the Bipin Behari Intermediate College, Jhansi, in July 1951. It is alleged that a week after his admission the Principal struck off his name from the class register and told him verbally that ho could not be permitted to study in the college as he was a Communist. Later on the students of the college threatened to go on strike and at that time the applicant gave an undertaking in writing to the Principal that he would not take part in any subversive activity whether inside or outside the college. Upon this the petitioner was re-admitted into the class and he recontinued his studies in the 1st year Class. He could not take the six-monthly examination on account of his illness; but in the annual examination, it is said, he got pass marks in all the subjects. He was required to appear in a supplementary exam...
State Through Deep NaraIn Singh Vs. Hem NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All200
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J. 1. The Gram Panchayat of Shivapur Karan Chhapra reported to the panchayati Adalat of Kararha Uparwar against the applicant and others in connection with apprehending breach of peace. The Panchayati Adalat issued a notice to the applicant requiring him to appear in Court on a certain date. Thenotice is alleged to have been served on the applicant. The applicant, however, denies, it. The fact is that on the date of hearing the applicant did not appear before the Panchayati Adalat. The Panchayati Adalat being satisfied that the notice had been served convicted the applicant of the offence under Section 172, I. P. C. and ordered him to pay Rs. 85/-fine. The revision filed against that order was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who held that under Section 52, Panchayat Raj Act the Panchayati Adalat had jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 172, I. P. C. and that therefore the sentence passed on the applicant could not be held to be illegal or imprope...
Munshi Singh Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All197
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J.1. A preliminary inquiry is in progress in the Court of a Magistrate, First Class, Shahjahanpur against a number of accused. When the first prosecution witness, the complainant, had been examined in chief, the learned counsel for the accused presented an application to the Court requesting for the production of the various post mortem reports, the injury reports, the site plan and the recovery lists by the prosecution so that he be in a position to cross-examine the witnesses effectively. The prosecuting inspector was asked to report on the application. He filed the post mortem and the injury reports and stated that the other documents would be filed at the time of the examination of the witnesses proving those documents. The learned Magistrate then ordered that application to be filed. Against that order the applicant, one of the accused, went in revision to the Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur. He was of opinion that the accused had a right to have all the exhibi...
Shafi Ahmad and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All564
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J. 1. The applicants were tried by a Panchayati Adalat and convicted of the offences under Sections 447 and 352, I. p. c. and sentenced to a, fine of Rs. 15/- each for each offence. On revision, the Sub-divisional Magistrate set aside the order of conviction under Section 352, I. P. C., holding that it was wrong; but he did not quash the conviction of the applicants under Section 447, I. P. C. They, therefore, apply to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for the quashing of the conviction under Section 447, I. P. C. 2. The Jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 85 of the Panchayat Raj Act is limited to his cancelling the jurisdiction of the Fanchayati Adalat with regard to any case, suit or proceeding if he finds that there had been a mis-carriage of justice. If he finds that there was a miscarriage of justice, he is not given the power to pass the order which he considers to be correct on the basis of the material on record. It ap...
Kr. Jyoti Sarup Vs. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All25
Mukerji, J. 1. These two applications are connected in the sense that the points for determination in both the applications are identical. Consequently I think it proper to dispose of both the applications by means of this common judgment. Both the applications are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the prayers, which have been put in the alternative, are the same in both the applications. 2. The applicants in both the cases pray for the issue of a writ of mandamus as against opposite party No. 2 i. e. the Collector of Pilibhit, directing him to issue suitable 'forms' to the applicants for submitting their returns under the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act (Act 3 of 1949) as provided by Section 6(2)(a) of the Act for the assessment year, 1951-1952. 3. The applicants further pray that a writ of mandamus be issued directing opposite party No. 1 namely the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, to decide the respective applications of the applicants in accordance with law. 4. A...
Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, United Provin ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All198; [1952]22ITR528(All)
V. Bhargava, J.1. In this reference under Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act read with Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, the following question has been referred to us for decision :'Whether in the circumstances on the construction of the Articles of Association of the applicant company and in view of the provisions of Section 2(5) of the E.P.T. Act and Sub-rule 2 of Rule 4 of Schedule 1 of the E.P.T. Rules the income from investment in shades, securities and immovable property could be legally assessed to E.P.T. ?'2. The statement of the case sent by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal shows that the assessee, Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd., Bareilly is carrying on banking business as its main business. It also made investments in shares and securities and happened to acquire certain immovable property. The question arises whether the income from the investments in shares and securities and immovable property could be legally assessed to excess profit tax and the Tribunal held ...
Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd., Bareilly Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All208; [1952]22CompCas322(All); [1952]22ITR470(All)
V. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act. The assessee is a limited Banking Company having among its objects the following. Clause (a) To give loans or advances on personal or other security and to carry on banking business generally. Clause (c) To acquire by purchase, lease, exchange or otherwise any movable or immovable property & any rights or privileges which the company may think necessary or convenient with reference to any of the objects for which the company is established or the acquisition of which may seem calculated to ensure any immediate or remote advantage to the company. Clause (g) To sell, improve, manage, develop, exchange, lease mortgage, dispose of, turn to account or otherwise deal with all or any part of the property of the company and to sell and to realise the proceeds of sale of any movable or immovable property of the company. 2. Though according to Clauses (c) & (g) the objects of the comp...
Mool Chand and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All220
Agarwala, J. 1. This is an appeal by Mool Chand, aged 22 years, and Phool Chand, aged 30 years, against their conviction under Section 302 and under Sections 302/34, I. P. C. respectively and sentence of death. There is also before us the usual reference for the confirmation of the death sentence.2. The appellants were prosecuted along with Brij Lal and Ram Naresh under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, I. P. C. for having conspired together to murder one Nathey Ahir after arming themselves with deadly weapons in the company of one or two more persons and for having committed murder of the aforesaid person at about mid-night between the 3rd and 4th August 1951 in village Bahapur, while the deceased was sleeping on a Machan in a field. Brij Lal and Ram Naresh were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge.3. It appears that Mool Chand's father Lautan and Phool Chand's father Sultan were cousins. They used to cultivate a field of Rampat zamindar, P. W. 13. Rampat ejected them b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »