Allahabad Court July 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.
Chandrapal and ors. Vs. State Through Mahabir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All14
ORDERRandhir Singh, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Sessions Judge refusing to Interfere with an order passed by a Magistrate, first class, under Section 133, Cr. P. C., requiring the applicant to remove an obstruction from a public way.2. Mahabir and Babadin made an application to the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 133, Cr. P. C., against Chandrapal and two others praying that the applicants should be ordered to remove the obstruction which they had placed on a public way inasmuch as the applicants had parked their bullockcart, had set up some troughs and were tying cattle in the way. On receipt of this application the Magistrate asked for a report from the police and the Tahsildar and on being satisfied that there was obstruction, issued a preliminary notice to the applicants to show cause why they should not be ordered to remove the obstruction.3. The applicants appeared before the Magistrate and filed a written statement in which they denied...
Badri NaraIn Lal Vs. Ramji Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All49
Malik, C.J.1. These are two connected appeals. Second appeal No. 323 of 1946 hasbeen filed against the decree passed by the lower Court in a suit for ejectment and for certain other reliefs, while the connected appeal,--execution of decree appeal No. 21 of 1947--has been filed against the order passed in execution proceedings dismissing an objection under Section 47, Civil P. C., by the judgment-debtor.2. Learned Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the second appeal is incompetent. The trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff but had directed the plaintiff to pay the costs incurred by defendant No. 2 and to pay in addition a sum of Rs. 25/- as compensatory costs. The defendants had submitted to the decree, but the plaintiff had filed an appeal against the portion of the decree directing him to pay costs and in addition compensatory costs. The appeal was allowed and the lower appellate Court set aside the order of the trial Court awarding costs ...
Jagdeo Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All99
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Jagdeo appeals against his conviction under Section 480, I. P. C. A notice was issued to him to show cause why the sentence passed against him be not enhanced.2. Srimati Lalji was found murdered inside her house at 11 a. m. on 27-4-1949. Her ornaments had been removed. On investigation, Jagdeo appellant was sent up for trial of the offence under Section 460, I. P. C. He was convicted of this offence and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment.3. The evidence in the case against the appellant was of two kinds: one kind of evidence consisted of his alleged extra-judicial confession to Baij Nath, and the other type of evidence was about the alleged recovery of certain ornaments of the deceased at his instance. In view of the opinion, we have formed during the hearing of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the case should be retried, we did not hear him fully on the merits and have consequently formed no opinion about the merits of the c...
Ram Padarath Vs. Parsotam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All50
ORDERDesai, J.1. The opposite party filed a suit in a revenue Court for a declaration that he is a tenant. The revenue Court held that the suit did not lie in that Court because though the landlord had been made a defendant to the suit no allegations had been made against him. It directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff (the opposite party) for presentation in a Civil Court.2. The plaintiff filed an appeal against that order which was heard by the Civil Judge. The learned Civil Judge held that the suit was cognizable by the revenue Court and, allowing the appeal, ordered it to receive the plaint and hear the suit. This application in revision is filed against the order of the learned Civil Judge under S. 276, U. P. Tenancy Act.3. The revision application is not entertainable because no question of jurisdiction is involved at all. It is not contended that the learned Civil Judge had no right or jurisdiction to hear the appeal. He is not said to have acted with any irregularit...
Padrauna Raj Krishan Sugar Works Ltd. and ors. Vs. Kunwar Laxmi Pratap ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All74
Chaturvedi, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Deoria confirming a previous order of his predecessor dated 31-5-1952. By this order the learned Civil Judge had allowed an application for the grant of a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, as prayed for by them. The plaintiffs had prayed for the issue of an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from acting on the basis of the resolutions said to have been passed at a meeting of the shareholders of the company on 24-4-1952; and from taking any steps in pursuance of or in furtherance to those resolutions, until the decision of the suit. The resolutions referred to were ten in number, but it is not necessary to reproduce them here.2. Plaintiff 1 is Padrauna Raj Krishna Sugar Works Ltd., and plaintiff 2 is Kr. Rudra Pratap Narain Singh, the Managing Director of plaintiff 1. Defendants 1 to 10 are the Directors or the shareholders of the said company. Padrauna Raj Krishna ...
Tula Ram Vs. Mangaloo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All10
Brij Mohan Lall, J.1. This is a first appeal from an order passed by the learned District Judge of Meerut. It appears that a civil appeal was pending before the learned District Judge. Rupa, one of the respondents in the said appeal, died during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant did not make an application to bring Rupa's legal representative on the record within the time allowed by law. After the expiry of the said period he made an application praying that Rupa's son, Yadu, might be brought on the record under Order 41, Rule 20 C. P. C. At the same time he contended before the learned District Judge that the appeal had not abated as a result of his failure to bring Rupa's legal representative on the record.2. The learned District Judge remarked in his order under appeal that the counsel for the appellant should make up his mind as to whether he would make an application under Order 22, Rule 9, C. P. C., to bring the legal representative of Rupa on the record or he would conte...
Chandra Bhan Vs. the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All6
Mootham, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The essential facts in an involved chain of circumstances are the following :One Suraj Bhan Jain, who is the father of the petitioner, was the owner of certain premises in Agra. On 23-2-1950, he informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra, that the portion of the premises which was occupied by Sri Genda Lal Jain was about to be vacated, and he asked that that portion of the house be allotted to the petitioner.3. On 15th April Suraj Bhan Jain moved an application before the same Officer in which he stated that as more than thirty days had passed from the date upon which he had informed that officer of the existence of the vacancy, and as no allotment had been made, he nominated the petitioner as his tenant in respect of the vacant portion of the premises. No action having been taken on either of these applications, Suraj Bhan Jain made a further application on 2nd May, and on 3rd June the Rent Control and...
Rampur Tannery and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Umar Uddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All11
Malik, C.J.1. This is a revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. The point raised by learned counsel is that there is no provision of law under which when a suit was filed on behalf of a partnership by a partner the other partners could apply that their names be also brought on the record and they might be allowed to continue the suit on behalf of the partnership. Learned counsel has relied on the provisions of Order 30, Civil P. C. (Act 5 of 1908) and has urged that the order relates only to an application by a party to the suit applying for disclosure of names of partners of a firm, in the name of which or against which a suit has been filed, and the other partners, who were not parties to the suit, had no right to apply that their names be disclosed and they be allowed to continue the suit in the name of the partnership.The provisions of Order 30, Civil P. C. are, however, enabling provisions and they enable any two or more persons to sue or be sued in the name of a firm. If the prov...
Sm. Sheopiari Vs. Devi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All21; (1954)ILLJ277All
ORDERR. Singh, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Lucknow recommending that the order of Sri V. N. Vidyant, Magistrate first class, refusing to entertain an application under Section 488 Cr. P. C. on behalf of Shrimati Sheopiari be set a'side and the proceedings Be transferred to some other competent Court.2. It appears that Shrimati Sheopiari made an anplication against Devi Prasad for maintenance under Section 488, Cr. P. C. before the Additional City Magistrate, Lucknow. In the mean time one Rameshwar Dayal had sued Shrimati Sheopiari for restitution of conjugal rights in the Civil Court. An ex parte decree was passed in his favour and the Additional City Magistrate dismissed her application for maintenance on the ground that there stood a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of one Rameshwar Dayal against the lady and as such she could not maintain an application for an order of maintenance under Section 488, Cr. P. C.3. The ex parte decree passed in f...
Bhup NaraIn and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All29
ORDERRandhir Singh, J. 1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Sessions Judge dismiss-ing an appeal against the order of a Magistrate requiring the applicants to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 500/-, to keep the peace under Section 107, Criminal P. C.2. It appears that there was presumably some likelihood of a breach of the peace and the police made a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi, asking proceedings to be taken under Section 107, Criminal P. C. against two sets of persons of village Bawan. There were two factions in the village, one headed by Bhup Narain and Lakshmi Narain and the other headed by Kamarul Hasan, Ram Shanker, Ram Saran and one other. On receipt of this report the Magistrate made an order under Section 112, Criminal P. C. and sent notices to the applicants, as also to some others, to show cause why action should not be taken against them as reported by the police. The substance of the information received was set forth in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »