Allahabad Court April 1954 Judgments
Brij Mohan Dixit Vs. Gobardhan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All126
ORDERBrij Mohan Lall, J. 1. This is an application in revision by one Pandit Brij Mohan Dixit against an order passed by the learned District Judge of Banaras rejecting his application for review of judgment. The reason given by the learned Judge for throwing out the review application is that it was presented to the Munsarim and not to him (the Judge). 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that it was not obligatory on the part of the applicant to present the petition for review to the Judge personally and that presentation to the Munsarim of the Court amounted to a substantial compliance with law. I have, therefore, to examine how far presentation to Munsarim is permitted by law. 3. Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C., lays down that in certain given circumstances and on grounds specified in the said rule any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order of a Court may apply for a review of Judgment 'to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.'...
Tag this Judgment!Kumari Saroj Rawat Vs. Secretary, Bar Council High Court, Allahabad an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All735
Mukerji J. 1. This is a petition by Kumari Saroj Rawat under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ of mandamus be issued to opposite parties 1 and 2 'to act according to law and place the application of the applicant before the Court for appropriate orders' or in the alternative 'to issue a writ of mandamus to opposite party No. 3 directing it to issue a notification under Section 1(3) of the Indian Ear Councils Act 1928 applying the provisions of the Act of 1926 to this court.' So far as the first prayer is concerned we need say nothing since the petition has been placed before us and we are going to make appropriate orders. on that petition. In order to see whether or not we would issue a writ of mandamus to opposite-party No. 3, namely, the Government of Uttar Pradesh, it is necessary to state a few facts.2. The petitioner alleges that she passed the LL. B. Examination from the University of Lucknow in the year 1952 and that thereatfer she completed one year's...
Tag this Judgment!Kumari Saroj Rawat Vs. Secretary, Bar Council High Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1954
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1498
B. Mukerji, J.1. This is a petition by Kumari Saroj Rawat under Article 228 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ of mandamus be issued to opposite parties 1 and 2 'to act according to law and place the application of the applicant before the Court for appropriate orders' or in the alternative 'to issue a writ of mandamus to opposite party No. 3 directing it to issue a notification under Section 1(3) of the Indian Bar Councils Act 1926 applying the provisions of the Act of 1926 to this Court.' So far as the first prayer is concerned we need say nothing since the petition has been placed before us and we are going to make appropriate orders on that petition. In order to see whether or not we would issue a writ of mandamus to opposite-party No. 3, namely, the Government of Uttar Pradesh, it is necessary to state a few facts.2. The petitioner alleges that she passed the LL. B. Examination from the University of Lucknow in the year 1952 and that thereafter she completed one year...
Tag this Judgment!L. Ram Sarup Vs. Gindoo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All736
Brij Mohan Lall, J. 1. Under Rule 1(xiv) of Chapter II of the Rules of Court, 1952, the Joint Registrar has placed this matter before me so that I may issue directions for his future guidance. The question involved, as rightly, pointed out by him, is one of importance and of frequent occurrence. 2. It appears that Gindoo, the sole respondent in this second appeal, has died. The appellant has made an application to bring five persons on the record as the deceased's legal representatives. Two of the persons sought to be brought on the record are minors. Therefore the petition contains a further prayer, viz. that guardians 'ad litem' be appointed for the said two minors. 3. The question which the Joint Registrar has referred for decision is whether these two prayers could be combined in one petition or whether two separate petitions should have been presented. He has pointed out that prior to the coming into force of the present rules in 1952 such a composite application could be made. He...
Tag this Judgment!L. Sheo NaraIn Lal, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1954
Reported in: [1954]26ITR249(All)
MALIK, C.J. - This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The assessee, Lala Sheo Narain Lal, has been assessed to income-tax for several years as an individual. A notice was issued to him under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, asking him to file a fresh return of his income in respect of the assessment years 1942-43, 1943-44 and 1944-45. We are only concerned with the assessment year 1944-45. It was claimed on behalf of the Department that certain income belonging to the assessee had escaped assessment and the Income-tax Officer had received definite information leading to that result. The case for the Department was that the assessee had two houses - one in Sarup Nagar and the other in Prem Nagar at Kanpur -which stood in the name of his wife Anchi Bai but which really belonged to the assessee and his wife was only a benamidar for him. The Income-tax Officer included the income of both these house in the assessable income of the assessee but, on appea...
Tag this Judgment!Parma Nand and ors. Vs. Sm. Chhimmawati and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All64
Brij Mohan Lall, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs. A suit for possession under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, was instituted by the respondent against one Sm. Savitri and her husband Banarasi Das. During the pendency of that suit the present appellants purchased the property from Smt. Savitri. They were impleaded as parties to the litigation and a decree for possession was passed against them also.2. They have now filed the suit which has given rise to this second appeal to obtain an injunction restraining the respondent from executing the decree. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit. In my opinion also such a suit does not lie. The appellants must first surrender possession and thereafter they can set up any right they like on the basis of title. If they are granted an injunction restraining the respondent from executing her decree the very object, and purpose of the suit under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, will be defeated. The object and purpose of that sui...
Tag this Judgment!State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kailash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All98; 1955CriLJ275
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J.1. This is an application by the State of Uttar Pradesh for the cancellation of the bail granted to Kailash by the Sessions Judge on 3-12-1953 when a case under Sections 366 and 368, Penal Code, was under investigation with the police of Farrukhabad.By 3-12-1953 the police had not been able to arrest Kailash. Kailash himself did not appear before the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the case, or before the Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad. An application was filed on his behalf before the Sessions Judge praying for bail and stating the reason why he could not appear in Court and why he should be given bail.The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of opinion that the circumstances were such that the accused could not surrender. He allowed him: bail to the satisfaction of any first class Magistrate having jurisdiction.It is contended for the State that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to pass this order granting bail and that, therefore, this order s...
Tag this Judgment!Onkar Mal and ors. Vs. Ram Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All722
Hari Shankar, J. 1. This is a court-fee matter in a second appeal by the plaintiffs.2. In order to appreciate the question of court-fee raised before us it is necessary to state a few facts. The plaintiffs brought a partition suit in respect of a house in which they claimed a moiety share. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs were in joint possession of their half share ever since its purchase on 11-1-1937, from the father of the defendants for a sum of Rs. 1,500/-3. The above suit was contested by the defendants-respondents. They denied the fact that the plaintiffs were co-owners of the house. They further denied that the plaintiffs were in possession of the share claimed by them. The question whether the plaintiffs were in joint possession of the house was the subject-matter of issue No. 3, which, ran thus:'Are the plaintiffs in possession of the house? If not, what is the effect?'Both sides led evidence on this issue. On the evidence produced in the case the trial Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Maqsood Khan Vs. State, Through Mohd. Raza Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All257; 1955CriLJ750
ORDERBeg, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli recommending that an order passed by Sri V. P. Sharma, S. D. M., Rae Bareli under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be set aside.It would appear that one Maqsood Khan made an application on 20-2-1952 under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the allegations that he was in possession of plots Nos. 6091, 1430, 1631, 1761, .1438, 650, 1795, 332, 436 and 565 situate in tahsil Mahrajgang district Rae Bareli, that he held a patta of these plots, that he had deposited the Bhumidhari dues in respect of the said plots and that the opposite parties were turbulent persons who had forcibly cut down the 'sarson' crop grown by the applicant. The opposite parties in this application were Mohamad Raza Khan and 9 others.The applicant Maqsood Khan is the son of Ishaq Khan and the grandson of one Dildar Khan. Mohammad Raza Khan one of the opposite parties is a brother of Ishaq Khan who is another ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Murar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All128; 1955CriLJ336
ORDERRandhir Singh, J.1. This is an application in revision under Sections 435/439, Criminal P. C., and under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of S. D. M. Malihabad, Lucknow dismissing an application in revision against the order passed by the Panchayati Adalat, Gonda Moazam Nagar.2. It appears that a complaint was instituted under Sections 379/511/504/506, Penal Code, before the Panchavati Adalat of Gonda Moazamnagar. The allegations made by the complainant were that his gram crop was being stealthily removed from his field. When he noticed the loss on the 17th March and again on 18-3-1952 he made a complaint to the Mukhia, who asked him if he suspected anybody of the theft. The complainant told the Mukhia that he had no idea as to who had committed the theft. The Mukhia advised him to keep a watch and find out the culprits.The complainant then sat stealthily near the 'mend' of his field on the evening of 19-3-1952, when, at about 7 p.m. the four app...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »