Allahabad Court September 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.
Bishamber Dayal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All183
ORDERDesai, J.1. The applicants have been convicted Under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act read with Clause 8, U. P. Flour, Rice and Dal Mills Control Order, 1948. It has been held by the Courts below that they contravened Clause 3 of the Order by allowing 'bajra' and wheat to be ground in their flour mill without having a licence. The applicants are the owners of a flour mill situated, in Kakore and it was inspected by a Marketing Inspector who found that the mill was being worked by Mahboob, a servant of the applicants and that 'bajra' and wheat were being ground. He also found that the applicants had not obtained a licence for grinding controlled foodgrains in the mill. 'Bajra' and wheat are controlled foodgrains. Clause 3 of the Order is :'No flour mill x x x shall grind or hull xxx any controlled foodgrain except under and in accordance with the terms of a licence granted under this Order'.2. I am surprised at the language used in this clause. I never expected ...
Lachhmi NaraIn Tewari Vs. District Judge, Lucknow and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All198; (1954)ILLJ447All
Randhir Singh, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner prays that the order passed by the Magistrate and upheld by the District Judge under Section 15, Payment of Wages Act (4 of 1936) be quashed as they acted with material irregularity in rejecting the application made by the applicant under Section 15, Payment of Wages Act.2. The applicant was a ward keeper in the office of the District Controller of Stores, Alambagh, Lucknow. He was in charge of certain stores and some items of the stores were found missing whereupon he was asked to make good the deficiency and the price of the articles lost which amounted to Rs. 883/2/- was ordered to be deducted in monthly instalments of Rs. 49/1/- extending over a period from 1-6-1947 to 30-11-1948. The deductions were made. On 13-7-1950, an application was made under Section 15, Payment of Wages Act to the City Magistrate Lucknow claiming that the deductions from his wages were improper ...
Ludur Vs. Ram Raj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All171
Randhir Singh, J.1. This appeal originally came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court who thought that the points involved in this case reserved consideration by a Division Bench. The case was therefore listed before this Bench. It arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs respondents for possession of some plots of land which were a part of the tenancy holding of the plaintiffs but which had been taken possession of unlawfully by the defendant appellant. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the plots were given to him under a private partition and as such he was a tenant of the plots. Pleas of limitation and jurisdiction were also raised and it was contended that the suit should have been instituted in the revenue court and that it was barred by limitation.2. As the defendant raised a plea of tenancy, an issue about tenancy was referred to the revenue Court. The revenue Court before deciding the issue remitted to it by the Civil Court, imple...
Mt. Phulia Vs. Narpat Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All307
Kidwai, J.1. The property in suit belonged to one Kandhai Lodh who died on the 21-10-1926, leaving a widow Srimati Thakura, the widow of a pre-deceased son Srimati Jasodra and a daughter of that son Mst. Phulia. Thakura died in 1938 and Srimati Jasodra entered into possession and transferred the property by sale on the 6th of June, 1940 to Chandrabhal, defendant No. 2. A suit for pre-emption was instituted by Narpat Singh and a decree was passed in his favour on the 7th of July, 1941. He paid the money and obtained possession of the property on the 26th of February, 1942.2. In the meanwhile on the 4th of June, 1941 Mst. Phulia instituted a suit against Srimati Jasodra and Chandrabhal claiming to be the owner of the property as a reversionary heir of her deceased grand-father. This suit was compromised. A decree was passed in favour of Mst. Phulia on the 6th of August, 1941. She obtained possession under it on the 25th of February, 1942 but she was dispossessed when possession was deliv...
Bhakat Shiromani Vs. the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All118
Mootham, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a landlord who seeks to have quashed an allotment order made under the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act in favour of respondent 2. Respondent 1 is the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad.2. The petitioner is the owner of a building in Motilal Nehru Road, Allahabad, which has been sub-divided into two parts known as 11A and 11B. It is a two storyed building and the petitioner occupies the whole of 11A and the first floor of 11B. The premises which are the subject of the allotment order are the ground floor of 11B. The case for the petitioner is that he was not consulted before the allotment order in favour of respondent 2 was made as is required by Rule 7 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Rules.3. The allotment order, which has not been produced, was made on 24-3-1953. The petitioner had, prior to this date, written several letters to the Rent Control Officer asking that the disputed accommodation...
The Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd., Kanpur Vs. the Labour Appellate T ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All161; (1954)ILLJ451All
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a public limited company which carries on at Kanpur the business of manufacturing and selling jute goods. It paid to its workmen for the year ending 30-9-1951, a bonus of four annas in the rupee of their net basic earnings during the year. The workmen were not however satisfied, and they claimed payment of an additional bonus of the same amount, namely four annas in the rupee, in respect of the same year. As no amicable settlement could be arrived at, the State Government referred the claim to the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer, Kanpur, who by an award dated 29-12-1952, found in favour of the workmen and ordered that they be paid a further sum of four annas in the rupee as bonus. The amount which the company is required to pay under this award was approximately Rs. 1,10,000.2. The company preferred an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal and at the same time it applied for a stay of the ope...
Sm. Subhana Vs. State Through Hashmat Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All193
Chaturvedi, J. 1. Srimati Subhana has come up in revision, against her conviction under Section 448, Penal Code by the Special Magistrate of Lucknow. She was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20/- and in default she was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. She went in appeal before the Assistant Sessions Judge, who maintained the order of the Magistrate. She has now come up in revision on the ground that her conviction under Section 448, I. P. C. was illegal.2. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. Hashmat Ali complainant filed a suit for ejectment against Munna Lal, son of the applicant. The suit was decreed and ultimately the possession of the portion of the house was delivered to Hashmat Ali on 3-2-1950 by the Civil Court. Hashmat Ali then put his lock on that portion of the house. A few days later when Hash-mat Ali went to realise rent from some other tenant, he found the accused in possession of the house after breaking open the lock which had been pu...
Ram Nath and anr. Vs. Ram Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All152
Randhir Singh, J.1. This is a second appeal in an execution matter. One Ram Prasad obtained a simple money decree against Ram Asrey. Ram Asrey filed a revision against the decree in the Chief Court as also an appeal before the District Judge of Barabanki. The hearing of the appeal was adjourned on account of the revision. The revision application was ultimately dismissed on 17-1-1944. Thereafter the appeal also came up for hearing before the District Judge. On that date the appellant Ram Asrey did not appear and the District Judge after noting the absence of the appellant Ram Asrey and the presence of the respondent dismissed the appeal with costs.The decree-holder put his decree into execution. An objection was raised on the ground of limitation and it was urged that the decree having been put into execution more than three years after the date of the trial Court's decree, the execution application was barred by time. On behalf of the decree-holder it was contended that the starting p...
Pandohi Ahir Vs. Faruq Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All191
Randhir Singh, J. 1. This is a second appeal from-the judgment of the Civil Judge, Fyzabad, in a suit for possession.2. The facts of this case are simple. The plaintiff claiming to be a cosharer in certain property including the plots in dispute in this case brought-a suit against defendants 1 and 2 for possession-on the allegations that the plots which belonged to the plaintiff and some other cosharers including defendant 2 had been sold to defendant 1 by defendant 2 as his exclusive property and that the plaintiff was therefore entitled to pos-session of those plots.3. The defendants contested the suit. They denied that the plaintiff had any share in the property. A plea of jurisdiction was also raised and it was alleged that the suit was not within the cognizance of the civil court.4. The learned Munsif who heard the case came to the conclusion that the suit was cognizable by the civil Court and also found that the plaintiff and defendant 2 were cosharers in the plots which had been...
Lachman Singh Vs. Ghanshiyam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All175
ORDERRandhir Singh, J.1. This is an application in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order of the Panchayati Adalat of village Barwan district Hardoi.2. It appears that a complaint under Sections 323 and 325, I. P. C. was instituted in the Court of a Magistrate against the applicant by one Ghanshyam. As the Magistrate found that the case was triable by a Panchayati Adalat it was transferred to the Panchayati Adalat for disposal. It held the charge under Section 323, I. P. C. proved against the applicant and he was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 80/-. Towards the close of the judgment of the Panchayati Adalat it was also mentioned that the accused should be ordered to furnish bail bonds. The applicant was aggrieved by this order and went in revision to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate but the revision was dismissed. He has now come up to this Court in revision.3. The first point which has been urged on behalf of the applicant is that no oath was administer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »