Allahabad Court February 1954 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.
Pt. Balmukand Vs. Veer Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All643
Malik, C.J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a contract and the suit was decreed. Learned counsel has stated that the plaintiff had also asked for delivery of possession of the property but no mention was made in the decree about delivery of possession. The terms of the decree were as follows :'The plaintiff's suit for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 12-1-1948 is decreed against the defendants and the defendants 1 to 5 are ordered to execute a sale deed of the property in dispute in favour of the plaintiff on payment of......'It is urged by learned counsel that the plaintiff having claimed possession and possession not having been specifically granted in the decree, it must be deemed that the relief for possession was refused and the plaintiff cannot, therefore, claim delivery of possession.2. We do not think there is any force in this contention. Section 55(1)(f) of the Transfer of Property Act (iv of 1882) ...
Ashtbhuja Singh Vs. Board of Revenue Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All521
ORDERV. Bhargava, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. By this petition the petitioner challenges the correctness of an order of the Board of Revenue dated 9-12-1953 by which a second appeal was dismissed by the Board. The petitioner should have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution which is the appropriate provision for this purpose.2. On merits also this petition has no force. It appears that the second appeal was first heard by one Member of the Board of Revenue. Shri A. Rauf on 22-8-1953 passed his judgment holding that he would allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and restore that passed by the trial court. This judgment went for concurrence to another Member Shri T. N. Srivastava who differed from Shri A. Rauf and held that he would suggest that the decree of the Additional Commissioner should be maintained and the appeal be dismissed. Consequent on...
Rama Shanker Tewari Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All121
Desai, J.1. This is an application in revision against conviction under Section 18 of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act (Act No, 23 of 1931). There is no dispute about the facts; the conviction is challenged on the ground that the Act was unconstitutional and became void on the passing of the Constitution. On a search of the applicant's house on 11-6-1950 in execution of a search warrant issued by the District Magistrate of Azamgarh cyclostyled leaflets were recovered. Some leaflets contained the constitution of the United Provinces Khet Majdoor Union, some were entitled 'Conspiracy of Great Britain and America to start third world War' and the others contained communist propaganda. The name of the printer was not printed on any of them.2. Section 15 of the Act lays down that a District Magistrate mayby order in writing and subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose, authorise any person by name to publish a news sheet, or to publish hews sheets from time to time.A ...
Deoria Sugar Mills Ltd., Deoria Vs. Govt. of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All497; (1954)IILLJ269All
Malik, C.J. and V. Bhargava, J.1. The petitioners in these petitions for issue of writs in the nature of 'certiorari, mandamus' and prohibition are the Deoria Sugar Mills, Ltd., peoria, and Shri Sita Ram Sugar Company, Ltd., Baitalpur, District Deoria.2. The facts alleged on behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 134 of 1950 are that, under the orders of the Government of Uttar Predesh, the petitioner-company was directed to pay out a fixed amount as bonus for the year 1947-48 in the year 1949 to the workers of the sugar factory, the definition of 'workers' being as given in Sub-rule 8 of Rule 11 of the Rules framed under the U. P. Sugar Factories Control Act, 1933. Interpreting this order as including workers employed at the Head Office of the Company at Calcutta the petitioner-company made pro rata payments to the workers employed at Deoria as well as to those employed at the Head Office at Calcutta.The Deoria Chini Mill Mazdoor Union, representing the workmen employed in the ...
Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All538; (1954)IILLJ279All
Malik, C.J.1. I have carefully considered the judgments prepared by my brothers Sapru and Bhargam. On the points on which they are in agreement I have nothing to add. On one point, however, they have differed. Bhargava, J. has held that the order passed by the U. P. Government under Section 3(b), U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (U. P. Act No. 28 of 1947) about payment of bonus for the years 1947-48 and 1948-49 was invalid as the U. P. Government had no authority to pass an order determining the conditions of service of the workmen with retrospective effect and, in any case, such bonus could be payable only to the workmen who were in service in those years. My brother, Sapru, has, however, taken a different view.2. As has been pointed out by my brother Bhargava, the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act No, 14 of 1947) deals with settlement of industrial disputes by Conciliation Officers or Boards of Conciliation or by Industrial Tribunals, Courts of Inquiry have also been provided for inqui...
Raja Ram Vs. Madho Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All592
Malik, C.J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against an order of remand passed by the lower appellate court. 2. The plaintiff is the landlord and the defendant is his tenant. On 1st February 1947, the premises were let out to the defendant on a monthly rental of Rs. 65/-, the tenancy being from month to month in accordance with the Gregorian Calendar. On 29th May 1948, the plaintiff gave to the defendant notice to quit by 30th June 1948, and on 26th July 1948, filed the suit for ejectment, arrears of rent for two months from 1st May 1948, to 30th June 1948; for Rs. 104/-mesne profits from 1st July 1948, on which date according to the plaintiff the tenancy terminated, to 26th July 1948, when the suit was filed; and for 'pendente lite' and future mesne profits. 3. The defendant admitted that he was a month to month tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 65/-, but pleaded that he had paid Rs. 65/-one month's rent in advance, that when he had occupied the premises on 1st February 1947, the premi...
Aziz Khan Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All642
ORDERBrij Mohan Lal, J.1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal P. C., by the learned Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur. He recommends that Aziz Khan's conviction under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (24 of 1946) read with Clause 3, Cotton Textile (Control of Movement) Order, 1948 recorded by a learned Magistrate of that district in a summary trial be quashed and that the sentence of a fine of rupees twentyfive and of the forfeiture of certain quantity of cloth, be set aside.2. Aziz Khan had filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge and thereupon the learned Sessions Judge made this reference. Obviously it was taken for granted by Aziz Khan in the court below that the sentence awarded to him was not appealable. The learned Sessions Judge made a brief reference to this question in the note appended to his judgment. He was of the opinion that since it was not proved that the cloth of which forfeiture had been ordered was worth more than rupees ...
Kastoor Chand Gupta Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1954
Reported in: (1955)ILLJ132All
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. On 8 February 1950, the petitioner was appointed a sub-editor on the staff of the Amrita Patrika, a Hindi daily newspaper published in Allahabad, on a remuneration, including dearness allowance, of Rs. 200 a month. On 3 May 1952, he was suspended, but the order of suspension was shortly afterwards withdrawn. On 25 February 1953, he was again suspended on the ground of repeated breaches of discipline, and on 4 March the charges against him were put in writing and he was asked to furnish an explanation. On 27 February the Allahabad Journalists' Association, and on 17 March the Uttar Pradesh Working Journalists' Union, a registered trade union to which the Allahabad Journalists' Association is affiliated, sent applications to the regional conciliation officer asking him to institute conciliation proceedings in the dispute which had arisen between the petitioner and the management of the Amrita Patrika newspaper, the Amrita Bazar...
Mrs. Avril Ellen Smith Vs. Reginald Frank Smith
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All624
ORDERBrij Mohan Lall, J.1. This is a wife's petition for dissolution of her marriage with her husband (hereinafter described as respondent) on the ground of alleged adultery, cruelty and desertion.2. The respondent pleads, inter alia, that he is a British subject domiciled in England and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree for dissolution of his marriage.3. The petitioner's counsel contended, in the first place, that it was not admitted by his client that the respondent was domiciled in England and, in the alternative, that even if it was proved that the respondent's domicile was in England, the Courts in this country could give the petitioner a decree for dissolution of marriage which would be operative in India, though not in England. In support of this contention, he relied on the case of -- 'Mrs. Nan Greenwood v. L. V. Greenwood', AIR 1928 Oudh 218 (1) (A). In that case Pullan J. held that where neither party was proved to be domiciled in India, the Indian Cou...
Ram Adhar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All645
ORDERSapru, J.1. I am rather surprised at the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge upholding the conviction of the applicants accused without affording an opportunity either to the applicants or to their counsel to present the case for them. The learned Sessions Judge appears to think that special credit is due to him for having refused to hear arguments proposed to be addressed by the applicants' counsel or the applicants themselves.2. It may be that in an application in revision it is not obligatory on the Court to hear counsel, but even at the admission stage Courts prefer to hear counsel. It should be borne in mind by our Sessions Judges and our Magistracy that citizens have a right in a democratic State to seek the assistance of our Courts of law for the protection of their right to life, reputation and liberty. One of the principles which is firmly embedded in the system of jurisprudence that we administer is that justice must not only be done, but must seem to be done. If part...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »