Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All705
ORDERMehrotra, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of prohibition he issued to the opposite party No. 1 restraining him from delivering the (judgment in Criminal Case No. 412 of 1949 (State versus Manoharlal Kanodia and others). The petitioner along with others were prosecuted of an offence under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act 1946, read with Clause 24, Cotton Textile Control Order 1948.The opposite party No. 1, who was the Additional District Magistrate, Rural Areas, Kanpur, tried the case, heard the evidence but could not deliver the judgment for he was transferred to Tehri Garhwal as District Magistrate. He handed over the charge to the opposite party No. 2 on 9-9-1954 and thereafter the case was fixed for 8th December for delivery of judgment. An application was moved by the petitioner that he was unable to attend the court on account of illness.On that an order was passed directing the applicant to appear before t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1956All175
H.S. Chaturvedi, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and for recoveryof rent.2. Basant Lal and Babu Ram, the two respondents, brought the suit on 3-12-1951, for ejectment of Moti Lal appellant from the shop which had been purchased by the two brothers some time before the suit. It appears that on 22-10-1951, the two brothers (plaintiffs) served a notice on theappellant requiring him to vacate the shop. Thisnotice was served after Basant Lal had obtainedthe permission of the District Magistrate of Kherito eject Moti Lal appellant from the shop in question.3.. The title of the plaintiffs to the shop which was in occupation of the defendant as a tenant was not disputed. The only ground upon which the suit was contested was that the permission obtained from the District Magistrate as also the notice served on the defendant were bad in law.4. The learned Munsif held the notice-which was served upon the appellant Moti Lal was a perfectly valid notice. He al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All549
ORDERV. Bhargava, J.1. The Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company, Limited, Kanpur, filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of 'prohibition' against opposite party 1, the State Industrial Tribunal, U. P., prohibiting it from proceeding further with the industrial dispute case No. 78 of 1953 pending before that Tribunal, a writ in the nature of 'certiorari' quashing the proceedings in that industrial dispute case and a writ in the nature of 'mandamus' against the State of Uttar Pradesh opposite, party 5, directing it to withdraw its notification No. 2078 (LC)XVIII-LA-T-l7673(KR)/53 dated 25-6-1953, by which an industrial dispute between the petitioner company and opposite party 6, the Suti Mill Mazdoor Union, Kanpur, was referred for adjudication by the State of Uttar Pradesh to the State Industrial Tribunal, U. P.2. The case as put forward by the petitioner company, as that, on 7-11-1951, an illegal strike was commenced in the mil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All708
Agarwala, J.1. This is a special appeal against the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The facts briefly are as follows:2. In October 1953, the appellant was elected a President of the Municipal Board, Bareilly. On 15-12-1954, a notice of intention to move a non-confidence motion was given by twenty-seven members of the Board to the District Magistrate along with the motion of non-confidence. This was under Section 87A (2) of the Municipalities Act.3. Thereupon the District Magistrate issued notice to the members of the Board that a meeting to consider the non-confidence motion would be held on 17-1-1955, at 11 A. M. in the Municipal Office. The notice, however, was not accompanied with a full copy of the non-confidence motion. On 17-1-1955 a meeting was held and the Chairman of the meeting was Mr. R.P. Saksena, Civil & Sessions Judge of Bareilly. He had no copy of the non-confidence motion with hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1956All687
Mootham, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Bijnor, dismissing an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Munsif of Bijnor in a suit for partition.2. The dispute between the parties relates to certain property which belonged to one Tafazzul Hussain. After Tafazzul Husain's death one of his heirs sold his undivided share in the property to the first appellant. Sometime thereafter the respondents, who are the remaining heirs, instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for partition of the entire property. They claimed that they were entitled under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893, to include in the property the subject of the suit the share of the first appellant upon payment to him of the value of his share.The appellant raised several defences. He contended, first, that after the death of Tafazzul Husain the heirs partitioned the latter's property and that he had acquired the share which had been allotted to his vendor in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All512
Agarwala, J.1. This is a special appeal against a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:--2. The appellants are employed as Storemen in the Defence Department, Union of India, and were working at the Central Ordnance Depot, Chhcoki, Allahabad. There was a report about the theft of certain articles and a police enquiry was at first held and later on the matter was referred to what is called a 'court of enquiry' which held the preliminary enquiry and came to the conclusion that the appellants were responsible for the thefts and they were suspended with effect from 15-9-1952 and they are still under suspension.The petition under Article 226, as originally presented on 27-8-1953, merely stated the facts, as they existed on that date and the prayer made was that the opposite party, which was the Ministry of Defence, Union of India, be commanded to withdraw the order of suspensio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All432
Mootham, C.J. 1. Two questions have been referred to this Full Bench for decision. The circumstances in which the reference has been made are these:2. In 1950 or early in 1951 the petitioner, who was the tenant-in-chief of a certain plot of land,filed a suit under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act') for the ejectment of the third respondent on the ground that he was a trespasser. On 11-5-1951, the petitioner obtained a decree, and thereafter in execution of his decree he recovered possession of the plot. The third respondent appealed, but before his appeal could be heard a vesting order to take effect from 1-7-1952, was made under Section 4, U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' or 'the Zamindari Abolition Act') which came into force on 26-1-1951.3. The Act abolished the zamindari system and made far reaching changes in the system of land tenure. Under Section 20 those persons who on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All620; 1955CriLJ1446
Mulla, J.1. One Mohammad Urooj, a resident of Kanpur, owned and managed a tenanery on 'Kundan Road which was on the road between Unnao and Kanpur. He purchased a large number of goat hides From Gul Mohammad and Brothers of Kanpur. These hides were known by the name of 'Patna Tayari' hides. About 8 or 9 days after these hides came to his tannery theft was committed in the tannery buildings between the night of 13 and 14-12-1951 and 389 hides were stolen. Mohammed Urooj made a report about this theft on the 15-12-1951.No names were given in this report. The police registered a case under Section 380, I. P. C., but did not succeed in tracing the culprits. Sub-Inspector Shaukat Husain was in charge of the investigation. He was about to file a final report when Mohammad Urooj approached one Noor Mohammad, P. W. 3, and tried to trace the stolen hides through him. Before the final report could be accepted, the investigation was taken away from Sub-Inspector Shaukat Husain by the Station Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All552
Agarwala, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of execution proceedings. A preliminary decree for partition of certain joint family property was passed on 18-5-1933 against the appellant and his father. They filed an appeal to the High Court which was dismissed on 30-3-1939. They went up to the Privy Council in appeal. The appeal was, however, dismissed with costs on 6-4-1948. Duringthe pendency of the appeal to the Privy Councilthe trial court passed the final decree on 28-4-1945. This decree was against the appellant alone as his father Basdeo Sahai had died during the pendencyof the appeal in the Privy Council.The decree directed a partition of the immoveable property in suit, and also awarded to the plaintiff a certain amount to be paid by the appellant. An execution application to execute the finaldecree was made on 8-9-1949 as against the appellant and the prayer was to realise the amount decree by attachment and sale of the personal property of the appellant. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1957)ILLJ212All
M.B. Chaturvedi, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm doing the business of glass manufacture at Naini, in the district of Allahabad. Respondent 2 was in service of the petitioner on a salary of Rs. 100 per mensem in addition to travelling allowance when going out of station. A copy of the letter of his appointment has been filed, which shows that the petitioner was appointed as an accountant-clerk with effect from 22 July 1950. The petitioner's case is that respondent 2 was in its employment only till June 1951, after which he started another firm at Banaras and then he was working with Bharat Glass Agencies, Banaras. It is said in February 1952, the respondent 2 again joined the petitioner's service and worked till 17 March 1952, when he suddenly stopped the petitioner's work and joined Tribeni Glass Works, Naini, a rival concern. The case of respondent 2 is that he continued in service of the petitioner from July 1950 ...
Tag this Judgment!