Allahabad Court October 1953 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.
Ram Asray Vs. State Through Shamsher Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All247
Harish Chandra, J.1. This is an application, in revision arising out of an order passed by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the district of Sultanpur directing the applicant, Ram Asrey, to remove a certain encroachment on a public way by demolishing a portion of his house on the south-east corner. He went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge who dismissed his application. He has row come up to this Court in revision.2. The facts are simple. After a local inspection the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, passed an order on the 15th October, 1950 under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the applicant and one other person to remove the alleged encroachments by the 25th October, 1950 or 'to show cause on that day why they should not be made to do so'. Ram Asrey appeared on the 25th October, 1950 and filed an objection in which he said that his residential house had not encroached upon the public way by even an inch and that it had been re-constructed on its ol...
Dori Lal Vs. Lal Sheo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All244
Malik, C.J.1. This is a Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a certain sum of money. The defendant denied his liability to pay the amount. The matter was referred to arbitration and the father of lawyer appearing for the plaintiff was appointed arbitrator. The arbitrator on the 16th of January, 1948, fixed the 22nd of January, 1948, for hearing and he gave notice of the date to counsel for the parties on the 18th of January, 1948. On the 22nd of January, 1948, the defendant did not appear and the plaintiff produced his evidence and on the 23rd of January, 1948, the arbitrator gave his award. The award was filed in the court of the learned Munsif to be made a rule of the court. The defendant objected to the award being made a rule of the court on the ground that he had no information of the date fixed.The learned Munsif held that the defendant had no notice of the date fixed and the arbitrator was, therefore, guilty o...
Prem Dutta Paliwal Vs. Superintendent Central Prison Agra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All315
Mootham, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of 'habeas corpus'.2. The petitioner was detained on the 7th May, 1953, under Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. On the 29th May he was furnished by the District Magistrate with the grounds of his detention. Subsequently the case of the petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board, constituted under Section 8 of the Preventive Detention Act, which came to the conclusion that there was a sufficient cause for the petitioner's detention. Thereafter the Governor by an order dated the 6th August, 1953, passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act directed that the petitioner continue to be detained for a maximum period of twelve months from the date of his detention.3. The petitioner contends that his detention is illegal as the grounds upon which he was detained were vague and indefinite and did not disclose sufficient particulars to enable him to m...
Khalil Ahamad Khan Vs. Malka Mehar Nigar Begum and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All362
Malik, C.J., V. Bhargava And Chaturvedi, JJ.1. These two appeals were referred to a bench of five Judges by a Division Bench of this Court on the 7th of February 1951,2. The appeals arise out of two suits relating to a 'wakf' created by Sohani Begam. A small pedigree will help in understanding the facts of this case. SOHANI BEGAM _________________|__________ | | Malka Mehar Nigar Begam Amdi Begam =Dr. Mahmud Ali Khan =Mohammad Hussain | _______|______________ Maqsood Ali Khan | | Khalil Ahmad Siddiq AhmadOn the 23rd of March, 1929, Sohani Begam executed a 'wakf alal aulad' under which she constituted herself as the first 'mutwalli' and, after her death, her daughter, Malka Mehar Nigar Begam, was to be the next 'mutwalli'. The relations, however, between the mother and the daughter grew strained and, on the 29th of November, 1938, Sohni Begam executed another document under which she purported to cancel the provision relating to the appointment of mutwalli after her.3. On the 14th of De...
Kailash Chand and ors. Vs. H.N. Agarwala and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All219
Mootham, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which arises in the following circumstances : 2. The petitioners and respondents Nos. 2 to 18 are candidates at an election for membership of the Municipal Board, Roorkee. The petitioners and these respondents filed their nomination. papers on 5-10-1953. On the 7th October, which was the date fixed for the scrutiny of the nomination papers, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of the respondents on the ground that they were not presented within the prescribed time. On the following day the respondents presented an application to the Returning Officer (who is the first respondent) asking him to review his order rejecting their nomination papers. The Returning Officer allowed this application and by an order dated the 10th October he set aside his earlier order of the 7th October and accepted the nomination papers of the respondents. The relief which the petitioners seek is the issue of a writ in the ...
Majid Ahmad Vs. Asst. Returning Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All234
Mootham, J.1. These are petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. In each case the petitioner desired to stand for membership of a town area committee and he duly filed his nomination paper. In each case the nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer. The petitioners now come to this Court and each seeks a writ in the nature of 'certiorari' to quash the order made by the Returning Officer.2. The first question is whether the petitioners can challenge the decision of the Returning Officer by a petition under Article 226, or indeed in any manner other than by an election petition. In my opinion they cannot do so. The right to vote or to stand as a candidate for election to a town area committee is not a common law but a statutory right, and it is a well recognised rule that if in such a case the statute which creates the right provides also the means for enforcing it, the remedy of the person aggrieved is restricted to the statutory relief. This was laid down in -- 'Wo...
Prabhakar Yajnik Vs. Dist. Magistrate, Bulandshahr and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All415
Mootham, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Con-stitution.2. A general election to the Anupshahr Municipal Board will be held in the course of the nextfew days and the petitioner, who is at present the Junior Vice-Chairman of the Board, is desirous of becoming a candidate for the office of President. He duly filed his nomination papers, but on the 26th September last respondent No. 4 lodged an objection before the Electoral Registration Officer alleging that the petitioner was not entitled to stand as a candidate on the ground that his name was improperly included in the municipal electoral roll. A summary enquiry was held by the Electoral Registration Officer, the third respondent, who by an order of the 2nd October, 1953, upheld the objection and directed that the petitioner's name be removed from the municipal electoral roll. On the 6th October, 1953, the petitioner's nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer, who is respondent No. 2, on the ground that t...
Durgeshwar Dayal Seth Vs. Secretary, Bar Council, Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All728
Desai, J.1. This is an application by Shri Durgeshwar Dayal Seth for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the opposite-parties directing them to include his name in the new roll of Advocates without his paying any sum of money. The application is opposed by all the three oppose parties.2. The applicant, who was called to the Bar on 18-11-35, was enrolled as an Advocate of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 23-2-38 and his name was duly entered on the roll of Advocates of the same High Court under Section 8(2)(b) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1928. He has been practising regularly in the High Court. In 1948 the Governor-General issued the United Provinces High Courts Amalgamation Order, 1948, amalgamating the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Chief Court of Avadh and establishing a new High Court, though bearing the old name of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, and giving a right to all Advocates, who were entitled to practise either in the High Court at A...
Durgeshwar Dayal Seth Vs. Secretary, Bar Council and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1485
Desai, J.1. This is an application by Sim Durgeshwar Dayal Seth for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the-opposite-parties directing them to include his name in the new roll of Advocates without his paying any sum of money. The application is opposed by all the three opposae parties.2. The applicant, who was called to the Bar on 18-11-35, was enrolled as an Advocate of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 23-2-38 and his name was duly entered on the roll of Advocates of the same High Court under Section 8(2)(b) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926. He has been practising regularly in the High Court, In 1948 the Governor-General issued the United provinces High Courts Amalgamation Order, 1948, amalgamating the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Chief Court of Avadh and establishing a new High Court, though bearing the old name of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, and giving a right to all Advocates, who were entitled to practise either in the High Court at A...
Radha Krishan Vs. Compensation Officer, Meja, Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All202
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the following circumstances:2. Sheo Garul Ram Pande died in 1925, leaving a widow and two daughters-in-law, one of whom is still alive. The zamindari property, which he left and over which the names of his widow, opposite-party 2, and daughter-in-law, opposite party 3, stand mutated, vested in the Government in view of the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951. Compensation for the zamindari property is to be paid. Under the orders of the Compensation Commissioner the amount is to be paid to opposite-parties 2 and 3. The applicant claims to be one of the sons of one of the two daughters left by Sheo Ram Pande. He at first filed an objection before the Compensation Officer to the payment of compensation to the opposite-parties 2 and 3. The objection was rejected by the Compensation Officer relying on the instructions issued from the Compensation Commissioner. He now ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »