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.
Chhotey and anr. Vs. Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All537
ORDERHarish Chandra, J. 1. This is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate of Meerut arising out of a case under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case was proceeding in the court of a Sub-divisional Magistrate. While the case was proceeding, an application was made to the Additional District Magistrate for the transfer of the case from that court to the court of some other Magistrate. This application was made on the 29th May, 1951, and the Additional District Magistrate passed an order summoning the record of the case from the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate. This was duly communicated to the Sub-divisional Magistrate on the 31st May, 1951 when he passed an order directing that the record be submitted to the Additional District Magistrate. But the record was not actually sent to that court on that date and on the following day the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate decided the case.2. The view of the learned Additional District Magistrate is that afte...
Laxmi Chand and anr. Vs. Asa Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All384
ORDERHarish Chandra, J. 1. This is a revision arising out of a complaint which has been instituted against the applicants under section 210 of the Indian Penal Code by order of a Civil Judge of Saharanpur passed on the 1st November, 1947, allowing an appeal from the order of the City Munsif dated the 12th October 1946 on an application made before it praying that a complaint be made against the applicants under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their prosecution under Section 210 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. 2. There was a revision from the order of the Civil Judge before the High Court and it was dismissed on the 4th March, 1949. Thereafter a complaint was made and is now proceeding before a Magistrate. In the Magistrate's court an objection was taken on behalf of the applicants that the proceedings out of which the application under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arose had taken place before the Havali Munsif at Saharanpur and that an ap...
Motibhai Lalloobhai and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1957All84
Mootham, J. 1. These are nine petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution in which the same point of law arises. In each case the petitioner is a firm which deals in tobacco and owns a ware-house licensed under Rule 140, Central Excise Rules, 1944, for the storage of tobacco on which duty has not been paid.2. On 28-2-1951, Bill No. 13 of 1951 was introduced into Parliament to give effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government for the financial year 1951-52 which commenced on 1-4-1951.Under Clause 7 of this Bill the proposed excise duty on unmanufactured tobacco, other than flue cured tobacco and tobacco used in the manufacture of cigarettes, was eight annas a pound and on tobacco used in the manufacture of biris it varied between six annas and nine annas a pound according to the quantity of tobacco used in the manufacture of a thousand biris.A declaration was included in the Bill that it was expedient in the public interest that the provisions of certain clauses there...
Daulat Ram and ors. Vs. Panchayat Adalat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All306
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. This is an application directed against the decision of a panchayati adalat. From the Judgment of the panchayati adalat it appears that they upon a secret inquiry made by a 'commission' of the adalat. They say that the secret inquiry proved that the complaint was true. No doubt they have considered the other evidence also which was on the record. But there can be no doubt that they were in their decision largely influenced by the secret inquiry.2. Such secret inquiry is not permitted by the provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. No doubt according to Section 83 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, it is the duty of the panchayati adalat to ascertain the facts of every case before it by every means in its power. It further permits the panchayati adalat to make a local investigation in the village to which the dispute relates. But such local investigation cannot be allowed to take the shape of a secret inquiry. Such secret inquiry would, in my view, not be 'lawfu...
Narijan and anr. Vs. State Through Deopujan Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All309
ORDERAgarwala, J. 1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order of the Panchayati Adalat convicting the applicants under sections 323 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to a fine of Rs. 10/-. The first point urged by the learned counsel for the applicants is that there was another proceeding pending before a Tahsildar for correction of names in the revenue papers in respect of the possession over the plots in dispute in the present case, and that the contention of the applicants that they were in possession of the plots was to be decided by the Tahsildar and that, therefore, the Panchayati Adalat had no jurisdiction to decide the criminal complaint in which the same point was to be decided namely, whether the applicants were in possession of the plots in dispute. Learned counsel for the applicants relied on Section 73 of the Panchayat Raj Act in support of his contention.2. In my .judgment, Section 73 of the Panchayati Raj Ac...
Jwala and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All358
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order dismissing the applicant's appeal which was directed against the order convicting the applicants under Sections 325 and 323, I.P.C. Jawala, applicant, has been sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 325, I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 50/- under Section 323, I. P. C. Badri, applicant, has been sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 325, I. P. C. and to a fine of Rs. 50/- under Section 323, I.P.C.2. Sita Ram complainant, of village Jaswan-pur, and his uncle Bandi were watering their fields. After half the field had been watered they discovered that the water was not flowing normally. They suspected that it must have been stopped by somebody. Both of them proceeded up stream and found that Jawala had directed the water to his field, though it was the turn of Jaswanpur people to irrigate their fields. Sita Ram protested, and when his protest went unheeded, he tried to block the w...
Ali Haider Vs. Sakina Begum and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All418
Randhir Singh, J. 1. This is a miscellaneous appeal arising out of proceedings under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. A suit was instituted by Srimati Sakina Begam, respondent No. 1, against the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 to 12 for a declaration, of her share in certain properties and for possession thereof on the allegations that she had inherited a share in the property which originally belonged to Yusuf Ali. The suit was contested only by the appellant, who was defendant No. 2, on various grounds. One of the grounds raised was that the court-fee paid by the plaintiff was insufficient. The Court framed an issue on this point and came to the conclusion that the court-fee paid by the plaintiff was insufficient and ordered the plaintiff to pay a further sum of Rs. 3,820/4/- as court-fee.The plaintiff found that she was unable to pay the court-fee and she, therefore, made an application for permission to sue in 'forma pauperis'. This application was pending when it appears...
Deo Nand Vs. Achaiber Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All361
ORDERBrij Mohan Lall, J. 1. This is an application in revision by a defendant in a pending suit. There are three-defendants in all. Summonses were issued to all of them by the trial court but only two of them put in appearance in the suit. The present applicant remained absent. The court ordered the case to proceed 'ex parte' against him. One of the defendants raised a plea of tenancy rights and an fssue was remitted to the revenue court for decision. The revenue court has sent its decision. When the case was put up before the learned Munsif for hearing the present applicant put in appearance and made an application for setting aside the order directing the case to proceed 'ex parte' against him. His application was not accompanied by an affidavit and the learned Munsif was not satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for his absence on the previous dates. He rejected that petition. Against this order this revision has been filed. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that...
Hari Shankar Prasad Gupta Vs. Sukhdeo Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All227
Malik, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Hari Shankar Prasad Gupta under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reliefs claimed by him are as follows :(a) A writ in the nature of quo warranto be issued against the opposite-party no. 1 calling upon him to show the authority under which he has been duly appointed a Member of the Election Tribunal and (b) a writ in the nature of prohibition beissued directing the opposite-party No. 1not to proceed with the hearing of theElection Petition No. 224 of 1952. 2. The applicant, Hari Shankar PrasadGupta, was elected to the House of the Peopleof Uttar Pradesh from the North Constituency,district Gorakhpur. Shibban Lal Saksena was arival candidate. He filed an election petitionchallenging the election of the applicant. Thepetition was numbered as Election Petition No.224 of 1952. The Election Commission appointed an Election. Tribunal to hear this petition and Sri Brij Narain, District Judge, Gorakhpur, was appointed the Chairman of the E...
Narottam Saran Vs. Govt. of the State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All232
Ragrubar Dayal, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of 'certiorari' calling for the record of the case and after perusal quashing the order of the State Government setting aside the order of the Commissioner and restoring that of the District Magistrate in the following circumstances.2. The applicant purchased a certain house in 1950 and applied to the District Magistrate, Mora-dabad for permission to file a suit for ejectment against opposite party No. 2. This application was rejected ay the District Magistrate. He filed a revision against the refusal to grant him permission to eject opposite party No. 2 before the Commissioner in view of section 3, Sub-section (2) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The revision was allowed and the applicant was given permission under section 3 of the Act to file a suit for ejectment of opposite party No. 2 at the end of six months f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›