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.
Raj NaraIn and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All448
Brij Mohan Lall, J. 1. As many as sixteen persons were put on their trial on a charge of dacoity before the learned Sessions Judge of RaeBareli. The trial resulted in the acquittal of nine. The remaining seven have preferred appeals to this Court. Every one of them has been sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment. Three of the appellants, viz., Raj Narain, Durga Din and Gaya Singh are represented by Mr. Chatterji, Bhagwan is re-presented by Mr. Kalbe Mustafa and the remaining three have preferred jail appeals. 2. The prosecution case is that all the seven appellants together with their nine companions, who have been acquitted, committed no less than eight dacoities in the night between 18/19-12-1950 18/19-12-1950 , in village Pure Sheo Ghulam, which is a hamlet of village Dubhan, within police circle Salon in the District of Rae Bareli. These dacoities were com-mitted in eight different houses situate in the aforesaid hamlet. 3. Mr. Chatterji has placed in the forefront ...
Mt. Naraini Devi Vs. Sudhist NaraIn Anand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All71
Malik, C.J.1. One Pirthi Narain, who was the owner of the property now in question, created a charge in favour of his wife in a sum of Rs. 25 a month payable to her as maintenance. There-after he sold the property to one Parsidh Narain. After a partition in the family the property came to Sudhist Narain Anand and another. On 16th September 1936 Sudhist Narain Anand and another filed an application under Section 4, U. P. Encumbered Estates Act. On 27th September 1937, the landlord-applicants filed a written statement under Section 8 and notices under Section 11 were issued on 6th August 1938. On 9th November 1938, Srimati Naraini Devi, wife of Pirthi Singh, filed a claim-under Section 11, Encumbered Estates Act, and prayed that 'it may specifically be provided in the decree of this Court after enquiry under Section 11, U. P. E. E. Act of 1934 that the property mentioned hereunder is subject to the charge of the maintenance money of Rs. 25 a month of your petitioner.'2. The learned Speci...
Mohammad Raza Ali Khan Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All92
Sapru, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the various writs detailed in para. 22 of the petition. It is necessary to setforth the reliefs claimed in order to make my position clear in regard to this ease. The reliefs claimed are : (a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued on the opposite parties restraining them from acting in any manner by virtue of, or under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (1 of 1951), and interfering with the petitioner's exercise of his proprietary rights by any action taken through its servants and agents. (b) That a writ or such other direction or order as the Court may deem proper be issued quashing the notification issued by the opposite party No. 1 under Section 4 of the said U.P. Act, 1 of 1951, and published in the State Gazette Extraordinary dated 1-7-1952, and directing the saidopposite party to restore the petitioner back to his proprietary possession, and restraining it by...
Badri and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All189
Agarwala, J.1. This is an appeal by 14 persons, namely, Badri, Moti, Munshi, Ram Lal, Gopi, Nathu, Ram Singh, Shaitan, Badshah Bhupal, Gajju, Sripal, Maharaj Singh and Chhadami, against their conviction under Section 147, Section 304 Para II, read with Section 149, I. P. C. and Section 323 read with Section 149, I. P. C. AH the appellants have been sentenced to 1 year's R. I. under Section 147, I. P. C.; each of the appellants 10 to 14 have been sentenced to 5 years' R. I. under Section 304 Para II read with Section 149, I. P. C.; each of the appellants 1 to 9 have been sentenced to 4 years' R. I. under Section 304 Para II read with Section 149, I. P. C.; and all the appellants have been sentenced to 1 year's R. I. under Section 323 read with Section 149, I.P.C. The sentences have been made to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in brief was that the appellants with two others, 'namely, Balwant and Babu, who have been acquitted by the court below, entered the Thaar of Kehri deceas...
Lal Dhananjay Singh Vs. Lal Bhim Bikram Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All442
ORDERMisra, J.1. This revision application filed by the Chief Inspector of' Stamps, U.P. relates to court-fee payable by the plaintiff Lal Vir Dhananjai Singh in a suit filed by him in the Court of Civil Judge, Gonda. According to his court-fee report made in the Court below there was a deficiency of Rs. 856/14/-.2. The suit was for declaration that the plaintiff is the rightful successor to the estate of his father Lal Harihar Pratap Singh as heir or as legatee under his will executed in 1939 and further that he is entitled as such to half share of the monthly heritable pension of Rs. 200/-, which his father got from the Government. It would appear from the allegations contained in the plaint that the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest Raja Udai Prakash Singh, whose estate was confiscated during the mutiny, was later on granted by the Government a number of villages and a heritable pension of Rs. 300/- per month for his own maintenance and the maintenance of his dependents as the ear...
Jai Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All991
Malik, C.J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants.2. The learned counsel has urged that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution was not reliable and the accused specially Devi Singh and Megh Singh could not be convicted on such evidence. This is however, not a point on which we can grant leave under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution.3. This Court, in an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in a criminal matter, has to be guided by the provisions ofArticle 134 of the Constitution and, if the case does not come under Clauses (1) (a) and (b) of Article 134, then a certificate can be granted only if the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court and thequestion, whether the case is or is not a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court, must be decided in accordance with the principles laid down by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee which have since been re-affirmed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Learned counsel has urged that sp...
Commr. of Income-tax, U.P. and Ajmer-merwara, Lucknow Vs. Bijli Cotton ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All232; [1953]23CompCas114(All); [1953]23ITR278(All)
Malik, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act. Two questions have been referred to us, one at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the other at the instance of the assessee. The questions referred for decision are : '1. Whether in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was empowered under the law to cancel the assessment and whether the order in appeal passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was within the ambit of his powers under Section 31, Income-tax Act? 2. Whether in the circumstances of the cage the income of the period from 11th December 1942, to 10th December 1943, could be legally assessed in the hands of the assessee company which was incorporated on 11th December 1943?' 2. The facts found in the appellate order of the income-tax Tribunal and which are stated in the statement of the case are that Messrs. David Mills Ltd, were previous owners of the Bijli Cotton Mills at Hatnras. Messrs. Shyamlal Chim...
Bishan Chand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All165; [1952]22ITR520(All)
Malik, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act read with Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The questions referred to us for answer are as follows : '1. Whether there is any change in the person carrying on a business within the meaning of Section 8(1) of the E. P. T. Act 1940 when the business which was previously carried on and owned by a Hindu undivided family is on disruption of the family, carried on and owned by a partnership composed of the members of the quandum family? 2. Whether the succeeding partnership is entitled to claim the set off of the deficiencies of profits of the chargeable accounting periods when the business was owned by the family?2. From the facts set out in the statement of the case, it appears that Kalicharan aud Chotey Lal were two brothers. Kalicharan had. two sons Bishan Chandra and Triloki Nath, while Chotey Lal had one son Shiva Prasad. Bishan Chandra, Triloki Nath and Shiva Prasad were all members of a joint Hindu f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›