Allahabad Court July 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.
Mohammad Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All756
Malik, C.J.1. Qazi Mohammad Siddiq has filed an application, Civil Misc. Writ No. 3 of 1953, against the State of uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate of Lucknow, under Article 226 of the Constitution, that the applicant applied for the taking out of a religious procession, Madhe Saheba, and this was unjustly refused by the Magistrate on 26-11-1952.The prayer in the application is that a writ of mandamus or prohibition or directions or such other writ, directions or orders, be issued, as it may be expedient, to the U. P. Government and the District Magistrate of Lucknow prohibiting them from interfering in taking out of the Madhe Saheba procession and holding public Madhe Saheba meetings by the applicant in the city of Lucknow and directing them to allow the applicant to take out such processions and to hold such meetings under such reasonable conditions as may be necessary in this connection, for which the applicant shall ever remain grateful.2. There are three other applications...
B. Ram Lal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All758
Desai, J.1. I have seen the order proposed to be made by, my learned brother.2. It was contended before us that the Ordinance lapsed before the prosecution. This contention was advanced on behalf of Sridhar Acharya before the withdrawal of the prosecution on 29-9-1948 and was overruled by the trial Court. He had brought up the matter to this Court and our brother Harish Chandra rejected the contention, see -- 'Sridhar Achari v. Emperor : AIR1948All182 . He held that the Ordinance was not of a limited validity and remained valid and in force after 1-4-1946 and that there was no legal bar to a prosecution started under Section 7 of the Ordinance in March 1947.The present prosecution is a different prosecution and the decision of our brother Harish Chandra is not binding on the applicant. But we are in full agreement with the decision. The Ordinance, having been promulgated between 27-6-1940 and 1-4-1946, was not subject to the limitation of six months' duration contained in Section 72 of...
Ram Lal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1954
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1581
Desai, J.1. I have seen the order proposed to be made by my learned brother.2. It was contended before us that the Ordinance lapsed before, the prosecution. This contention was advanced on behalf of Sridhar Acharya before the withdrawal of the prosecution on 29-9-1948 and was overruled by the trial Court. He had brought up the matter to this Court and our brother Harish Chandra rejected the contention, see - Sridhar Achari v. Emperor : AIR1948All182 . He held that, the Ordinance was not of a limited validity and remained valid and in force after 1-4-1946 and that there was no legal bar to a prosecution started under 8. 7 of the Ordinance in March 1947.The present prosecution is a different prosecution and the decision of our brother Harish Chandra is not binding on the applicant. But we are in full agreement with the decision. The Ordinance, having been promulgated between 27-6-1940 and 1-4-1946, was not subject to. the limitation of six months' duration contained in Section 72 of Sch....
Jagannath Singh and ors. Vs. Tirloki Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All769
Randhir Singh, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' first appeal arising out of a suit for possession of certain properties of which one Gappu Singh was the last holder. 2. It appears that Gappu Singh, who was possessed of considerable property, died on 3-8-1941, leaving five collaterals as his heirs. They are mentioned in the pedigree given in the judgment of the lower Court. On the death of Gappu Singh there was a dispute amongst his heirs who belonged to three different branches. The sons of Ram Charan and Sheo Nandan claimed a one-third share each as each of them represented a separate branch; while Mahadeo Singh's three sons claimed a one-fifth share each. This dispute was then referred to the arbitration of some persons and ultimately mutation was made in favour of the three branches in respect of one-third share of the property left by Gappu Singh. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was then instituted by the three sons of Mahadeo Singhfor possession of one-fifth share each in ...
Sampat Ram and ors. Vs. Baboo Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All24
Malik, C.J.1. One Abdul Majid was the owner of certain properties described in the plaint. On 25-6-1942, he entered into an agreement to sell these properties to defendant 2, Lala Sampat Ram alias Champa Ram and his adopted son, Lala Ram Gopal, defendant 3. On 17-7-1942 Abdul Majid entered into another agreement with the plaintiff Babu Lal to sell the same properties to him for Rs. 37,000/-. Though in the first agreement the price stipulated is Rs. 36,000/-, there is really not much difference between the sale prices fixed under the two agreements as in the agreement dated 25-6-1942, thevendees agreed to incur the entire expenses of execution, completion and registration of the sale-deed, while under the document dated 17-7-1942, the entire costs of execution, completion and registration of the document and brokerage, etc., had to be paid by the vendor and by way of stamp duty alone, on the sale-deed, roughly about Rs. 542/8/-had to be paid.On 25-9-1942, Abdul Majid executed a sale-dee...
Mewa Ram and ors. Vs. Deo Prakash Minor Through Mst. Chandravati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All770
Malik, C.J. 1. This appeal raises rather an interesting question though, on a careful examination, it is clear that the decision of the learned single Judge was right and that the points raised have no substance.There was a decree obtained by one Chheda Lal against Muktal for unpaid purchase money by enforcement of the unpaid purchaser's lien. This decree was in suit No. 47 of 1926.Muktal purchased a l/54th share in village Pohena from Chheda Lal on 16-2-1925, for Rs. 1,000/-. He paid Rs. 450/- in cash but the balance had remained unpaid. It was for the balance thatthe decree xvas obtained on 28-1-1927.The decree was then put under execution and 1/54th share that had been purchased was sold by auction. For the balance remaining unpaid a personal decree under Order 34, Rule 6 was obtained on22-6-1931.In between these dates on 9-3-1928, Muktal had made a gift of a 1/54th share (not the share that he had purchased from Chheda Lal) to his daughter's son, Murari Lal. The fact that the 1/54t...
Ram Autar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All771
Brij Mohan Lal, J. 1. This is an appeal by six persons, viz., Ram Autar, Bharosa, Binda, Ram Kumar, Raja Ram and Sheo Moorat who have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Banda under Sections 302/149, 323/149, 323/149 and 147, I. P. C. Every one of them has been sentenced to transportation for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ under Section 302/149, to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-under Section 325/149, to six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/149 and to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, I. P. C.2. It appears that there is a grove known as Gunji Bagh in village Man in the district of Banda. This grove has an area of 3 bighas and 14 biswas. The owners thereof agreed on 1-5-1950 to sell one bigha and 17 1/2 biswas of the grove to the appellants. On 15-5-1950 they agreed to sell one bigha and 17 biswas to the complainant's party. It willthus appear that the total area agreed to be sold exceeded the actual area of the ...
Gambhir Kumari Vs. Bishambhar Nath Soni
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All125; 1955CriLJ326
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. This is an application by Maharani Gambhir Kumari against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Dehra Dun confirming the order of the City Bench (A) Dehra Dun exempting the applicant from personal attendance at the hearing of a case under Sections 405 and 406, Penal Code, but modifying the order requiring her to furnish one or two sureties in the sum of Rs. 14 lacs to the effect that she was to furnish a personal bond in Rs. 50,000 and 2 sureties each in like amount. 2. Personal bond and sureties are required when a person is released from custody. If a person is not in custody no question of granting bail can arise and, therefore, no occasion to demand security. It may be that a certain specific provision of a statute may require the demand of a security from any person. There is nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides that security be demanded from an accused person who is exempted from personal attendance at the hearing of a case. In fa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›