Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All367; 1955CriLJ671
Randhir Singh, J. 1. The appellant in this case has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Lucknow Under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to death.2. The case arose out of a murder said to have been committed within the precincts of the city of Lucknow. Ram Lal deceased was an orderly constable of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Central Range) and used to live in the quarters attached to the residence of the Deputy Inspector General. Some other constables, who were also on the staff of the Deputy Inspector General, resided in the out-houses and one of them was Sundar Singh, who was driver of the staff car. It was alleged on behalf of the prosecution that Sundar Singh appellant, who was a widower, developed intimacy with the young wife of Ram Lal deceased, who also resided with her husband in a kothri close to the kothri or Sunder Singh.On the night between the 2nd and 3rd February 1954, at about 10 P. M. Ram Lal and Sunder Singh went together on a cycle. Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All569
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of an objection under Section 47, Civil P. C. The factsbriefly stated, are as follows:2. There are certain mills at Agra known as the John Mills, the owners of which belonged to a well-known John family, The appellant wanted to purchase the shares of one of the members of the John family and he wrote a letter to the respondent, Sri Kalinath, on 16-5-1944 from a place called Kishangarh in Rajasthan, and addressed the letter probably to Agra where Sri Kalinath resides. In this letter he made an offer to Sri Kalinath that if he could secure the sale of the shares of the late Major A. U. John in the immoveable properties and the mills at Agra, he would pay to Sri Kalinath a lump sum of rupees one lac on the completion of the transaction.After this, Letters of Administration wore issued in respect of the property of Major A. U. John, to one Mr. Pereira of Bombay. This was on 18-1-1945. Sri Kalinath carried on negotiations for sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1955)IILLJ754All
Agarwala, J.1. This is a special appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice Mootham, as his lordship then was, refusing to issue the writs prayed for by the appellant in the writ application moved by him in this Court. The appellant was a commercial clerk in the service of the Northern Railway. He was a temporary employee subject to the terms of the contract executed on 21 February 1949. One of the terms of the contract was that his services could be terminated on fourteen days' notice. A charge was framed against him for misconduct but later on it was given up and his services were not terminated because of the alleged misconduct but because 'his services were no longer required by the administration' and he was removed from service in terms of the conditions of service giving fourteen days' pay in lieu of notice. The order of dismissal was passed by the divisional superintendent, Kanpur area, He appealed to the divisional superintendent Northern Railway, Allahabad. His appeal was rej...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All370; 1955CriLJ901
ORDERMehrotra, J. 1. This revision was filed from jail by the applicant against the order of the Sessions Judge of Moradabad who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against his conviction under Section 6(e), U. P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act (40 of 1948) by' the Sessions Judge of Moradabad. In appeal however the Sessions Judge reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three years' rigorous imprisonment to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment. The applicant had prayed that he should be informed of the date fixed for hearing. An order was passed by Hon'ble Mukerji, Judge that the applicant be informed of the date and he should either appear in person or as was desired by him, Sri S. P. Gupta practising in the district Court be informed of the date and asked to appear on his behalf. Notice was then issued to Mr. Gupta and on the date of hearing he appeared and was permitted to argue the case on behalf of the applicant. The charge against the applicant was that he being an offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All706
ORDERKidwai, J. 1. This is a Small Cause Court case in which the plaintiff sued on the basis of a loan which was secured by an usufructuary mortgage. The mortgage provided for realisation of the money from the person of the mortgagor if there was a defect in title. It is not even alleged that there was any defect in the title of the mortgagor. Since this was an usufructuary mortgage, no suit could be brought on the basis of it apart from the question of personal liability unless it wasshown that the property was destroyed by any cause other than the default of the mortgagor or the mortgagee.In the present case the property was in thePunjab and the mortgagor and the mortgagee bothabandoned it and came away to India. The partition of India did not legally have the effect ofdestroying the rights of Hindu owners of property in Pakistan or of Muslim in India. Theplaintiff is not in possession of the property merelybecause he chose to abandon it and came awayto India. It was no doubt due to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1956All23
ORDERM.L. Chaturvedi, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Firm Banagopal. Amamath was constituted in the year 1948 and it used to deal in bullion and ornaments. The petitioner was a partner in this firm having a one-third share. The other two-third was owned by Amamath. and Kedar Nath in the proportion of one-half each. The firm was registered under Section 8A, U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, as a registered dealer. The firm elected to submit quarterly returns of its turn over, as provided by Rule 39(1) of the Rules framed under the Act. Amar-nath subsequently left the firm on 16-7-1950, and the other two partners, namely, Kedar Nath and the petitioner then became owners of this firm in the proportion of half and half. The firm was subsequently assessed to sales tax by an order dated the 19th July 1952. The reconstituted firm was known as Bansgopa! Amarnath and this firm was also dissolved on 18-4-1952.The assessment was, however, made on this firm for the year ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All704
1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal. In execution of decree of Rs. 31,106/15/ against the appellant the sale of the appellant's property took place first on 15-12-1953. The auction price was Rs. 31,500/-and the last bid was of the decree-holder. This sale was however set aside. A second time the same property was put up for sale on the 15th of March, 1954, and this time the decree-holder's bid was Rs. 30,500/-.This was the highest bid. But this sale was also set aside. A third time the property was sold on 14-5-1954 and the bid of the decree-holder was of Rs. 25,000/- only which was the highest. The Amin did not accept it and reported the matter to the Judge. On 9-7-1954, the decree-holder agreed to bid Rs. 31,500/- the amount which he had bid at the time of the auction held on 15-12-1953.The difference in the decretal amount and the bid, about Rs. 400/-, had been deposited by the decree--holder in time when the property was sold on 15-12-1953. As the amount deposited by him was in d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1955]28ITR45(All)
MALIK, C.J. - The assessee Raghunath Prasad was assessed to income-tax and excess profits tax for the year 1945-46. He made an application for a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act and the Tribunal referred to us two questions for decision which were as follows :'1. Whether in the circumstances of the case, the loss of Rs. 4,483 was an allowable loss having regard to proviso to section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act ?2. Whether in the circumstances of the case, the litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 6,338 represented admissible business expenditure under section 10(2) (xii) now (xv) of the Income-tax Act ?'The assessee filed an application that there were certain other questions of law that arose for decision which should have been referred to us. By our order dated the 29th of October, 1952, we directed that further questions of law which arose in the case should be referred to us for decision and in compliance with the order two other questions that have been re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All372
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a special appeal from a judgment of a single Judge of this Court in a case under Article 226 of the Constitution. The dispute relates to the succession to the mahantship of a math known as the Jotir Math. The Jotir Math is one of the four maths founded by the first Shankaracharya at the four corners of India, and is situated in Pauri Carhwal in this State. The other maths are at Shringiri in Mysore, Gobardhan Peeth in Puri and Sharda Peeth in Gujerat. The Mahants of these maths are also called Shankaracharyas. The last Shankaracharya of jotir Math was swami Brahmanand Saraswati who died on 20-5-1953. He was alleged to have executed a will, dated 18-12-1952, by which he had nominated as his successor to the mahantship of Jotir Math, as also to his personal properties, Swami Shantanand Saraswati, the appellant before us. Some persons, including respondents 3 to 6, were dissatisfied with the nomination of the appellant to the mahantship and they challenged the acce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All309
Malik, C.J. 1. These two cases came up before a Bench for hearing in the year 1949 and on 10-5-1949, they were referred to a Pull Bench as there was a conflict of opinion between the Allahabad High Court and the Oudh Chief Court on the point Whether a revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. (Act 5 of 1908) was entertainable by the High Court in a case where a Judge had refused to grant an application under Section 10 of the Code. The Allahabad High Court had held that no revision lay to this Court against the order as it was not a case decided, while the Oudh Chief Court had taken a contrary view that it was a case decided and a revision was entertainable. After the amalgamation of the two Courts in 1948 it was considered proper that there should remain no conflict and the case was, therefore, referred to a Full Bench for decision. When, however, the case was put up before a Bench of three Judges on 22-10-1951, they referred it to a larger Benchand on 24-10-1951, when the case came up ...
Tag this Judgment!