Allahabad Court May 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.
Vijayaram Raj Maharaja of Vizianagram Vs. Dr. Vijaya Anand Gajpati Raj ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All750
ORDERBrij Mohan Lall, J. 1. This is an application by a defendant under Sections 22 and 23(3), Civil P. C. for the transfer of a civil suit pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Banaras, to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatanam, or to the original side of the Madras High Court. 2. Section 22, Civil P. C., runs as follows : 'Where a suit may be instituted in any one of two or more Courts and is instituted in one of such Courts, any defendant, after notice to the other parties, may, at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, apply to have the suit transferred to another Court, and the Court to which such application is made, after considering the objections of the other parties (if any), shall determine in which of the several Courts having jurisdiction the suit shall proceed.' 3. It will thus appear that a condition precedent to the maintainability of an application under Section 22, C. P. C. is that a not...
L. Jeewanlal Vs. Commr. of Income-tax United Provinces, Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All762; [1953]24ITR217(All)
Malik, C.J.1. In this reference under Section 21, Excess Profits Tax Act, read with Section 66 (1). Income-tax Act, the following question has been referred to this Court for decision:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case mentioned wholly or partly income from Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Ltd., could be held to be profits from business within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the E.P.T. Act?'2. The assessee is Lala Jeewan Lal Dalal of Generalganj, Kanpur, who is being assessed in the status of an individual. The relevant, assessment year is 1946-47 and the chargeable account period is from 1-4-1945 to 31-3-1946. The assessee apart from other income showed in his return an amount of Rs. 1,27,147/- as remuneration from Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Ltd., Kanpur, at 1 per cent on sales and claimed it under the head 'salary'. The Excess Profits Tax Officer, on the other hand, claimed that the amount was income from business for which Excess Profits Tax was payable.3. The question...
Keshab Chandra Vs. Inspector of Schools and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All623
Malik, C.J. 1. This case discloses rather an unfortunate state of affairs. On 12-9-1952, there was some trouble in front of a school known as K. R. Rastogi Higher Secondary School, Farrukhabad. One of the boys reading in that School was the applicant Keshab Chandra, son of Mukta Prasad. He was a student of XIIth class. In the fracas between the police and the students two police officers received some injuries. A report was made at the police station, that about 150 to 200 students had taken part in the incident, but their names were not mentioned, The only name giver* in the report was that of a lecturer of the said School, Suresh Chandra Shukla.2. Whether the students of this particular institution had taken part in the fracas and who they were, is not a matter about which we can express any opinion. We have been informed that there is a case pending against 10 students in the Court of the Magistrate,. Fatehgarh.3. On 9-10-1952, even before the students who had been arrested had been...
Laxmi NaraIn Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All713
Malik, C.J. 1. The applicant Laxmi Narain has been convicted under Section 6(1)(i) Poisons Act (No. 12 of 1919) for contravening Rules 2 (2) (a) (b) and (c) of the Poisons Act. The applicant was also charged under Section 4, U. P. Prevention of Adulteration Act. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and the seven bags of adulterated mustard seeds seized by the Sanitary Inspector were confiscated under Section 6(2) of the same Act. The applicant is a dealer in mustard seeds and on 5-5-1950, the Inspector found in the shop of the applicant seven bags of mustard seeds, samples of which when sent to the Public Analyst, U. P. Government, were found to contain 12.5 per cent approximately of argemone maxicana. The applicant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 2. Learned counsel has raised three points. That argemone maxicana is not a poison not havingbeen notified as such under the Poisons Act andthe applicant could not, therefore, be convictedunder Section 6, Poisons Act. O...
Hari Ram Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All754
Asthana, J. 1. Hari Ram appellant was tried separately for two distinct offences under Section 436, Penal Code, for setting fire to the houses of Niroti and Mawasi on 13-1-1950, at about 4 A.M. in village Lakhanpur, police station Hari Parbat, district Agra. He was sentenced for these offences by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Agra to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of fine, to one year's further rigorous imprisonment. The sentences of imprisonment in both the cases were made concurrent. 2. Before dealing with these two appeals, I would like to point out that the observation of the learned Sessions Judge that the two offences, which appeared to have been committed during the same course of transaction according to the prosecution ease, could not be tried together is not correct. According to Section 234, Criminal P. C., when a person was accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve...
Chhedi Sahu and anr. Vs. Mst. Sheoraji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All708
Malik, C.J.1. This appeal has arisen out of proceedings initiated by an application under Section 8 of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act, Act No. 13 of 1940, for amendment of a decree for redemption.2. The facts in brief are that on 5-1-1880, one Janki and his son Kanhai mortgaged a house now in dispute, to one Ram Sarup for Rs. 299/-. The mortgage was for possession. On 2-1-1883, the two mortgagors executed a simple mortgage in resp'ect to the same house in favour of the same mortgagee for Rs. 299/-and stipulated therein that it would not be permissible for the mortgagors to redeem the mortgage of 1880 without paying up the amount due under the simple mortgage of 1883.3. The mortgagees remained in possession since 1880. Janki and Kanhai both died, and Kanhai's heirs who inherited the property transferred the equity of redemption on 28-8-1936, to the plaintiffs Mt. Sheoraji and Mt. Habiban. They left a sum of Rs. 299/- in their hands for redemption of the possessory mortgage of 1880 and st...
Devi Prasad Vs. Janki Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All732
Malik, C.J.1. This is a defendant's, appeal against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court. The defendant was a month-to-month tenant of a house. The plaintiff gave a notice on 22-1-1948, requiring the defendant to vacate the house in suit by 29-2-1948. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was filed on 16-3-1948, for ejectment and arrears of rent. Rent was claimed from 1-10-1946, to 30-6-1947, at the rate of Rs. 37/8/-, and again from 1-10-1947, to 29-2-1948, at the same rate. For the period during which the defendant had continued to occupy the premises after 29-2-1948, that is, from 1-3-1948, to 15-3-1948, damages were claimed at the rate of Rs. 56/4/-per month. As the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (3 of 1947) was applicable the plaintiff had taken the permission, of the District Magistrate under Section 3 on 27-5-1947, and the plaintiff relied on the permission for his right, to institute the suit. The relevant portion of Section 3 is as foll...
Nokhey Lal Vs. Pt. Swarup NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All761
Malik, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal filed against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The suit for recovery of money due on a bond, dated 15-5-1938, was filed on 4-12-1944. The amount of the bond was payable in thirteen instalments of Rs. 100/- each and a fourteenth instalment of Rs. 64/-. No instalment was, however, paid and the suit was brought for the recovery of the last eight in-stalments, the first six having become time-barred. The defence was that the whole claim had become due under the default clause in the bond. The clause relied upon is in these terms : 'In the event of default in payment of any instalment ('basurat kisi kisht khilafi ke), the creditor will have the right ('daen ko ikhtiar hoga') to recover his whole money in a lump sum ('apna kul rupya ek musht') with interest at Re. 1/- per cent per mensem.' This clause clearly meant that the amount of the bond was payable by instalments but if the defendant was not regular in his payments, the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›