Allahabad Court May 1954 Judgments
Sm. Saraswati Devi Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All127; 1955CriLJ331
ORDERMukerji, J.1. These three connected applications in (sic)vision arise out of certain objections that were(sic)ferred by the three applicants in the three re-(sic)ons in respect of proceedings under Section 88(6A) (sic) the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. It appears that one Chandra Mohan was accused of having committed embezzlement of Government funds while he was in Government employ and was serving as an 'ahalmad' in the Kanpur Collectorate. Chandra Mohan absconded, & on 6-11-1952 he was proclaimed an absconder. On the same day an order was made for the attachment of the property of the absconder Chandra Mohan. Some items of property were attached the same day; other items of property were, however, attached later, that is to say, on 14-11-1952.3. After the attachment, objections were preferred by Shyam Mohan the brother of Chandra Mohan, by Pran Chaudhari the mother of Chandra Mohan, and Smt. Saraswati the widowed sister of Chandra Mohan. These three objections were separately pr...
Tag this Judgment!Nasrullah Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All124; 1955CriLJ317
ORDERMukerji, J. 1. Mr. Sadiq Ali raised an interesting question in this revision -- the question that he raised was that the Government has been given a right of appeal against an acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while a private complainant, in whose case there is an acquittal, has no such right. It was, therefore, contended (sic) Mr. Sadiq Ali that this differentiation in the (sic)eatment between the State and the private individual offended against Article 14 of the Constitution. I have no doubt in my mind that the fact that (sic) private individual has not been given a right of appeal and a State has been given a right of appeal from an acquittal does not offend against the guarantee contained in Article 14 of the Constitution. Be that as it may, I am of the opinion that the question that Mr. Sadiq Ali has raised cannot be appropriately raised in these proceedings. The right of appeal is a creature of statute and the statute has not conferred a right o...
Tag this Judgment!Shyama Charan Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All81; 1955CriLJ261
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J. A child about 2 1/2 months old was found abandoned in the compound of the seed stores at Basti on the 19-5-1953. Shyama Charan getting information about the presence of the child there from one Shrimati Dhanpatia took charge of the child and took it to the police station where he reported the matter. The police then made over the child to Shyama Charan's custody. 2. On 20-5-1953, Jagannath applied to the Magistrate praying that the child be given to his custody, he having no child of his own. After getting a report from the police, the Magistrate ordered on 1-6-1953, that the child be given to Jagannath and the child was actually made over to Jagannath on 9-6-1953. 3. Thereafter Shyama Charan applied to the City Magistrate praying for the recall of the order expressing his failure to understand the law under which the order for the delivery of the child to Jagannath was passed and also the fact that a minor's custody is governed by the provisions of the Guardian...
Tag this Judgment!T.G. Jog Vs. Sri Ram Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All31
ORDER1. These two civil revisions under S. 115, Civil P. C,, are against two orders passed by the First Civil Judge of Kanpur on 16-4-1952, in a suit pending in his Court. The suit was filed on 24-8-1950, by Ram Sarup Bhartiya and Anandi Lal Bhartiya against the Kanpur Muir Mills Company, Ltd., Indian Textile Syndicate, Ltd., and 13 others. The reliefs claimed in the plaint are as follows:(1) For a declaration that the special resolutions 1 and 2 passed on 20-10-1947, appointing defendant 2 as Managing Agents and amending the Articles of Association of the Company are void and inoperative.(2) For a declaration that the appointment of defendant 2 as Managing Agents is void, inoperative and not binding on the company and on its shareholders.(3) For a declaration that the appointment of defendant 13 Cotton Textile Corporation, Ltd.., and thereafter of the Kanpur Agencies, Ltd., defendant 15 as the Selling Agents is void, inoperative and not binding on the company and on its shareholders.(...
Tag this Judgment!The Swadeshi Bima Co. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., L ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All693; [1954]26ITR530(All)
V. Bhakgava, J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act.2. The reference first came before this Court on 30-10-1952. Learned counsel for both parties then stated that they were agreed that the Statement of the Case was wholly insufficient to enable the Court to answer the important question of law, raised in the reference and they gave the Court detailed notes on the facts which they wanted to be mentioned in the reference and the papers which they wished to be included in the paper-book. Copies of those notes were sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which was directed to make a fuller statement of the case and send it to this Court. The Tribunal was further permitted to re-frame the questions upon which the opinion of the Court was sought and take such further evidence as might be necessary.A fresh Statement of the Case was accordingly prepared but again it was found that the Tribunal had not given a finding on all ...
Tag this Judgment!Kesar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All726
Malik, C.J. 1. This is a petition filed by Messrs Sugar Works, Limited, Baheri, Bareilly, who have claimed the following reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution: (1) An order, direction or writ may kindly be issued quashing the notifications, dated 9-3-1954 and 29-3-1954; or an order, direction or writ in the nature of a writ of 'mandamus' be issued commanding the opposite parties not to enforce the said notifications. (2) An interim older, direction or writ in the nature of writ of 'mandamus' be issued, restraining the opposite-parties from taking action against the petitioner or its officers for non-compliance with the provisions of the said notifications or the allotment orders issued thereunder. (3) Such, other order, direction or writ as may be necessary in the ends of justice and in the circumstances of the case may kindly be issued. (4) The costs of the above writ petition be allowed to the petitioner. The opposite-parties to this petition are (1) the Union of India t...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Reoti Devi Vs. Pt. Bhagwan Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All801
Gurtu, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal. It is necessary to set out the pedigree printed at page 2 of the paperbook, as it will help in the appreciation of the case of the parties- PANDIT LACHHMAN PRASAD _____________________________|_______________________________ | | Pandit Kashi Ram (Died on 12th Oct.1924, Pandit Jwala Prasad leaving no male issues). (died in 1908) | | Mst Batashi ( Daughter) (died about 192) |_________|___________ || | |BalakRam Sia Ram | _______________________________________________________|_______________ | | | | Raghubar Dayal (died on 26th Feb, Banwari Lal (died in 1914, Bhagwan Dayal Ram Lal933, leaving no mail issues). leaving no male issues). Plaintiff (died in 1914) | | (1) By first wife Ajudhia Prasad | Mst.Saraswati (daughter) |___________________________________________________ | | Lala Ram (died in 1942)(2) By Mst. Revti Devi Babu Ram second wife,defendant (died in 1942) | Mst. Daya Vati (minor). 2. The plaintiff's case has been stated as follows;...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Lal Vs. Madan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All789
Roy, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by Seth Shanti Lal, the plaintiff, whose suit No. 42 of 1940 instituted against four persons, namely, Madan Lal, Phondi Lal, Nathi Mal, and Lallu Mal had been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge of Agra on 28-1-1944. The suit was instituted on 22-10-1940. Shanti Lal alleged that the defendants formed a joint Hindu family and dealt in ready grain and also entered into forward contracts for the sale and purchase of grain and other commodities; that the defendants opened three different 'khatas' with the plaintiff, the one in the name of 'Madan Lal Lallu Mal', the other in the name of 'Lallu Mal Dalai', and the third in the name of 'Brij Kishore' and they did business in the commission agency of the plaintiff who acted as their 'pakka arhatia'; that the defendants entered into transactions in 'arhar, bajra', cotton seed, etc. in the commission agency of the plaintiff; that on account of these transactions ranging between 18-12-1939 and 14-3-1940,...
Tag this Judgment!HafizuddIn Vs. Governor-general of India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1954
Reported in: (1955)ILLJ134All
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out a suit which was instituted in December 1942 for a declaration that the order of the Commissioner of Income tax, dated 19 August 1932, discharging the plaintiff from service was illegal and void and that the plaintiff still continued to be in service. The plaintiff also claimed a decree for arrears of salary for all the period that had elapsed since his discharge from service till the institution of the suit. The plaintiff's case briefly stated was as follows. The plaintiff was appointed an assistant incometax officer by the United Provinces Government under their notification No. 343, dated 7 May 1921, and was confirmed as incometax officer in January 1924. In August 1932 when the plaintiff was drawing a salary of Rs. 590 per month, the incometax department conceived of a scheme to effect reduction in expenses in that department by discharging some incometax officers and in their places appointing inspectors of incometax on ...
Tag this Judgment!Murru Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All95; 1955CriLJ270
ORDERRandhir Singh, J.1. This is a criminal reference by the Sessions Judge of Rae Bareli.It appears that an application was made under Section 145, Criminal P. C. by one Murru against Sheo Dulari, Sheo Kumar and others on the allegation that there was an apprehension of a breach of the peace between the parties in respect of certain lands.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dalmau, before whom the application was presented, directed theStation Officer, Jagatpur, to inquire and report. He also directed the Station Officer to attach the property if he found any apprehension of a breach of the peace.The Station Officer submitted his report on 14-11-1950, in which he mentioned that there was an apprehension of a breach of the peace and that he had made the attachment of the property as directed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.On the report of the Station Officer the Sub-Divisional Magistrate ordered that notice should go to the parties.The case was thereafter transferred to Sri Samarjit Singh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »