Allahabad Court November 1955 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.
Pyarey Mohan and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All358; 1956CriLJ687
Kidwai, J. 1. The six appellants in these three appeals were employed in the North-Eastern Railway (then known as the Avadh and Tirhut Railway) at the Goods' Shed at Cooperganj in Kanpoor. 2. Pearey Mohan, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 1954, had been posted as inspector in overall charge of the shed for several years and he continued to occupy this post till 19-7-1947, when he was transferred. He was re-transferred to Coopergunj on 13-10-1947 and continued to occupy this post till after 30-5-1948. 3. Pearey Mohan had under him about 25 , chaukidars 6 or 7 peons and about 40 clerks including Ram Daur Misra, S. N. Pathak, and, Kamta Parsad, appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 1954, who were loading foreman (or clerk), relieving clerk and General Shed clerk respectively, and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 1954, Salig Ram and Ram Karan Misra, who were General Shed clerk and Trains Clerk respectively. All of them, except S. N. Pathak were at Coopergunj for the f...
Devi Dayal and ors Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1955
Reported in: [1956]7STC145(All)
ORDERChaturvedi, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. There was a rolling mill by the name of Sri Lachhman Rolling Mills and it was working in Kanpur. It was owned and possessed by one Smt. Maina Sundari Jain. Smt. Maina Sundari fell into financial difficulties and she sold the rolling mills to the petitioners under a sale deed, dated 12th January, 1955, free of all encumbrances, for, a sum of Rs. 50,000. Smt. Maina Sundari it appears had not paid sales tax on the turnover for the periods 1949 to 1954. -But the- petitioners were not aware of this liability of Smt. Maina Sundari to pay the sales tax. After, the purchase the petitioners put the mill in order and started working it. After the petitioners had started working the mill, they received a notice from the Tahsildar, Sales Tax, Kanpur, demanding the sales tax of the previous five years amounting to Rs. 13,710-12-0. The petitioners filed objections and submitted that they were not liable for the payment...
Jaipuria Brothers Ltd. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1955
Reported in: [1956]7STC64(All)
ORDERChaturvedi, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner is a public limited liability company having its head office at Calcutta. It was appointed as managing agent of the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Ltd., Kanpur, which concern is engaged in the manufacture of cloth and yarn. According to the petitioner, it was also appointed as the sole selling agent of the Swadeshi Cotton Mills with effect from the 5th October, 1946, as a temporary measure. The petitioner used to sell the cloth and yarn manufactured by the Swadeshi Cotton Mills. In 1948 the U.P. Legislature passed the U.P. Sales Tax Act, which came into force from the 1st April, 1948. A sales tax was imposed on the sales of cloth and yarn and the rate was changed from time to time. The petitioner obtained a licence under Section 6 of the Act and the case of the petitioner was that it was not selling any cloth or yarn on its own account but was doing so as the agent of the Swadeshi Cotton Mil...
Chote Lal Vs. State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All153; (1956)ILLJ543All
ORDERMehrotra, J.1. The petitioner was appointed a permanent Patwari in the year 1937. On 6-11-1952 the applicant was suspended by Sri Kanhaiya Lal, Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In the year 1953 there were certain demand's made by Patwaris and as a consequence of non-fulfilment of those demands a large number of Patwaris tendered their resignations.The petitioner also gave his resignatipn on 4-2-1953. Before, however, the resignation could be accepted, the disciplinary proceedings which were pending against the applicant and on account of which he had been suspended by the order, dated 6-11-1952 terminated and on 30-5-1953 an order was passed by Sri Kanhaiya Lal, Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissing the applicant from service. An appeal was filed before the District Magistrate against the aforesaid order of Sri Kanhaiya Lal. The appeal was heard by the Additional District Magistrate. On 12-9-1953 the Additional District Magistrate allowed the appeal, set aside the order of dismissal and ...
Shambhu and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All633; 1956CriLJ1179
ORDERJames, J.1. This revision raises questions of considerable importance in the day to day working of Sessions Courts in Uttar Pradesh on the Criminal appellate side. (I confine my remarksto Sessions Courts, since District Magistrates in Uttar Pradesh can no longer hear appeals from judgments and orders of Magistrates of the Second and Third classes, and all such appeals now lie to the Court of Session.).2. The facts are these. Certain persons, all residents of the Allahabad district, were tried before a Magistrate at Allahabad for offences under Sections 325 and 323 I. P. C., and on 28-12-1951 the learned Magistrate pronounced judgment finding them guilty and sentencing them to imprisonment and fine. In view of the sentence of imprisonment they were taken into custody.Against their conviction and sentences they on 5-1-1952 filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge of Allahabad. The petition of appeal was not accompanied by a copy of the Magistrate's judgment, but along with it was f...
Shri Duli Chand Kheria and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1955
Reported in: [1956]7STC70(All)
ORDERChaturvedi, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner No. 1 carries on the business of commission agency in the name and style of petitioner No. 2 and the place of business is No. 18, Amartolla Street, Calcutta. The petitioner supplies goods to the traders in Uttar Pradesh and also other places in India. On the 21st of October, 1954, the petitioner No. 2 received a notice from the Sales Tax Officer, U.P., (Calcutta) to file a return of the complete turnover of the previous year, under the U.P. Sales Tax Act of 1948. The petitioner No. 1 was registered previously as a 'dealer' under Section 8A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and this registration was valid upto 31st March, 1955. The notice was followed by a press note dated 21st November, 1954, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., in which it was stated that the ex. U.P. dealers were also liable to pay sales tax on the goods that were delivered in the territory of the State of U.P. f...
Sankatha Prasad Pande Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1955
Reported in: (1957)ILLJ265All
D.N. Roy, J.1. This an application in revision by Sankatha Prasad Pandey who has been prosecuted under Section 29 of the Police Act for the disobedience of an order passed on 1 January 1953, by the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that he has not committed any breach of any 'lawful order' passed by the Superintendent of Police, which may be tried or 'Punished under Section 29 of the Police Ac1.2. The facts giving rise to the prosecution as stated by the Superintendent of Police in the inspector under Section 29 of the Act are these. The sub-inspector wanted a house for himself as he had been asked to vacate the Second Officer's quarters in police station Bindhyachal. There was a house in Bindhyachal occupied by one Smt. Sircar with a view to force her to vacate the house. The Superintendent of Police, held an inquiry, and he found that the conduct of the sub-inspector, was unbecoming of a police official. He therefore directed that an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›