Allahabad Court November 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.
Mohammad YasIn Vs. the Dist. Magistrate and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ726
Mootham, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which, in my opinion, is misconceived. The petitioner is a petition-writer who held a licence Issued by the Collector of Kanpur which permitted him to exercise his profession within the Collectorate at Kanpur. For this licence the petitioner made a quarterly payment of five rupees. Suspicion arose earlier in the year that the petitioner had been responsible for the typing of an anonymous letter addressed to the District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur. An enquiry of some kind was held and on the 1st September, 1953, the petitioner's licence as a petition-writer was cancelled by an order which reads as follows:The typing licence No. 17 issued to Sri Mohammad Yasin, a typist of the Collectorate Court Compound, Kanpur, has been cancelled for a period of five years with effect from 26-8-1953 for having worked in an objectionable manner.No application or papers written by him should be entertained in any court.2. The petition...
Sagir Ahmad and ors. Vs. the Govt. of the State of Uttar Pradesh and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All257
Mukerji, J. 1. These are 106 connected petitions under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India. All these petitions raise more or less the same questions for decision -- at any rate the main questions which fall for determination in these cases are the same. These are all petitions by persons who have been operating motor vehicles for gain on the public highways of the State. These petitioners had the necessary 'permit' to operate their vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939. The Uttar Pradesh Government has, by virtue of powers conferred upon it by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Act, 1950 (U. P. Act No. II of 1951), hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act, in effect stopped some of the petitioners from plying their vehicles on the public highways and instead commenced plying vehicles of its own.2. All the petitions have more or less Bought common reliefs. The main relief sought is that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, ...
Audesh Pratap Singh Vs. Brij NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All245
Mootham, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner, Sri Audesh Pratap Singh, and respondents Nos. 4 to 11 were candidates for election to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Bikapur East General Constituency in the district of Faizabad at the last general election, and on the 3rd February, 1952, the petitioner was declared by the Returning Officer to be duly elected. On the 14th May the respondent No. 4, Sri Mahadeo, filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner on a number of grounds including the exercise of undue influence on the electors in a large number of villages in the constituency.2. The election petition was referred to an Election Tribunal sitting at Gorakhpur of which the first respondent is the Chairman and the second and third respondents are members. Objection is taken in the petition now before us to two orders passed by the Election Tribunal. In his petition before the latter body Sri Mahadeo clai...
Basant Singh Vs. Janak Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All447
Desai, J. 1. This is an application under Section 439, Criminal P. C. and Article 226 of the Constitution for the quashing of an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate Agra, setting aside an order of a Sub-divisional Magistrate. The Sub-divisional Magistrate had passed the order appointing the applicant as a mukhia under Section 45 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Additional District Magistrate revised that order and appointed the opposite-party as the mukhia in place of the applicant.2. An order passed under Section 45 (3)appointing a mukhia or an order removing a mukhia has been held by this Court to be an administrative (or executive or ministerial) order and not a judicial order against which any remedy can be had under the Code of Criminal Procedure. That the power to appoint a Mukhia is conferred upon a Magistrate does not make an exercise of the power a judicial proceeding. Whatever a Magistrate does or orders in exercise of a power conferred upon him is no...
Hansa and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All381
Chaturvedi, J. 1. The five appellants before me have all been convicted for the commission of offences under Sections 148, 304 read with Sections 149 & 323 read with Section 149 I. P. C. and have been sentenced to one year's R. I., five years R. I. and six months R. I. respectively. 2. The accused persons as well as Charni deceased and his nephews, Rupa and Mukhtar, resided in village Lachhoi, police station, Jahangira-bad, district Bulandshar. The prosecution story is that on the 3lst of May 1950 at about 6 P. M. Sukhpal, son of Amar Singh appellant, let loose his she-buffaloes in the sugar-cane field of Charni and his nephews. When Charni and his nephews saw this, they rounded up the she-buffaloes and started with them for the cattle pound. On seeing this Sukhpal went running to his hut and informed the members of his family that the she-buffaloes were being taken to the pound. On hearing this nine persons including the five appellants arrived on the scene armed with lathis and spear...
Maqsood Ali Vs. Zahid Ali Sabzposh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All385
Malik, C.J.1. These six appeals arise out of three suits and the first three of them have been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the three suits and the other three on behalf of the defendant.2. Suit No. 566 of 1941 was filed by Syed Maqsood All, alias Arif Ali, against Syed Zahid Ali. It was decided by the Additional Civil Judge on the 27th November, 1942, and the District Judge on the 20th of March, 1946. Against the decree of the lower appellate court the plain-tilt has filed the Second Appeal No. 2273 of 1946 and the defendant has filed the Second Appeal No. 84 of 1947.3 Suit No. 581 of 1941 was filed by Syed Sadiq Ali against the same defendant, Syed Zahid Ali. It was decided by the Additional Civil Judge on the 27th November, 1942, and the District Judge on the 20th of March, 1946. Against the decree of the lower appellate court* Second Appeal No. 2274 of 1946 has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff and Second Appeal No. 83 of 1947 on behalf of the defendant.4. Second Appeal...
Tula Ram Ram Rakshpal Vs. Amritdhara Pharmacy Ltd., Dehra Dun
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All720
ORDER1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Registrar under Section 15, Sub-section (4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, refusing to register the trade mark sought to be registered by the appellant. Section 76 of the Act gives the right of appeal against any decision of the Registrar under the Act to the High Court having jurisdiction. The appeal has been filed as an appeal against an order and Court-fee paid is Rs. 3/12/-.2. The Stamp Reporter made a report to the Taxing officer requiring direction on certain points. The Taxing Officer seems to have ordered, verbally that it be laid before Court. One of the points is whether this appeal should be treated to be a regular first appeal or as a first appeal from order. If it is treated as a first appeal from order the other point raised was whether it should be cognizable by a single Judge or a Bench of two Judges. The third question was about the amount of court-fee necessary on this appeal. According to the office note once the n...
Munshi and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All356
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Mathura recommending that the convictions and sentences passed upon the accused persons under Section 13 of the U. P. Public Gambling Act be set aside.2. It appears that the case was started by a Magistrate as a summary trial. He examined some witnesses but before he could finish the case he was replaced by another Magistrate. The accused did not demand a 'de novo' trial and the learned Magistrate proceeded to conclude the trial of the case. He examined the defence witnesses and, after considering the notes of evidence recorded by his predecessor, convicted the applicants and sentenced them to fines. No doubt, a Magistrate may under the law, if not objected to by the accused, proceed with a case which has been begun by another Magistrate and take into consideration the notes of evidence recorded by that Magistrate. But in a summary trial no record of evidence is maintained. But the Magistrate may, for his ow...
Ram Singh and ors. Vs. Panchayati Adalat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All252
Desai, J.1. The applicants pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the orders passed by the panchayati adalat of Bhojipura and by the Sub-divisional Magistrate. The applicants were prosecuted by the opposite-party No. 3 for offences of Sections 426, 323 and 506, I. P. C. before the panchayati adalat. The panchayati adalat convicted them of the offences and fined them on 12-8-1952. On 15-9-1952 they applied for a copy of the order and on 31-10-1952 they applied to the Sub-divisional Magistrate under Section 85 of the Panchayat Raj Act for revision of the order. The Sub-divisional Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that having been filed more than sixty days from the date of the order, it was barred by time. He thought that under Section 85 of the Panchayat Raj Act an application for revision of a panchayati adalat's order must be filed within sixty days of it. As the application was made after more than sixty days, it was...
Jamuna Prasad Vs. Harihar Baksh Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All360
ORDERKidwai, J. 1. This is an application in revision against the order of the District Judge of Bara Banki dismissing an appeal in respect of an application under Section 12 of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. 2. It appears that there existed four mortgages, the earliest being of the 4th May, 1833 and the latest being of the 4th of July, 1840. No period of redemption was specified in the deeds. An application was filed in 1947 for redemption under Section 12 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. The trial Court held that the application was barred in view of Article 148 read with Section 28 of the Limitation Act. The lower appellate Court upheld this finding. The applicant lias come up in revision. His learned Counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of the erstwhile Allahabad High Court reported in -- 'Ram Prasad v. Bishambhar Singh : AIR1946All400 . That case related to proceedings in respect of which the U. P. Debt Redemption Act applied. By virtue of the definition of loan conta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »