Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All557
Mehrotra, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued to the opposite party quashing the order of the Board of Revenue dated 2-2-1954. It is necessary to give certain facts in order to appreciate the grounds raised in the petition. Lala Ram Kishore, who is opposite party No. 5 to the present petition, was a zamindar and landholder of the disputed plots, mentioned in the petition, and Karan Singh, father of opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 in the present petition, was the hereditary tenant of the said plots.2. A suit was brought by Ram Kishore against Karan Singh under Section 163, U. P. Tenancy Act, for arrears of rent in respect of the disputed plots. In the said proceedings, it was found that Karan Singh had not paid the rent and therefore he was ordered to be ejected u/s. 165 on 1-6-1942. Possession was obtained by Ram Kishore over the plots to pursuance pf the aforesaid order. After obtaining possession Ram Kishore let o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All585
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, be declared ultra vires the Constitution and that a writ of mandamus direction or other writ requiring the opposite-parties to desist from demanding and realising the sales tax from the applicant on the sale of printed cotton or silk cloth be issued. 2. The applicant is a firm carrying on business at Farrukhabad in printed cloth, both handloom and mill-made cloth and then prints it and sells it as Saris, Lihafs, Fards, bed-covers etc. The applicant firm is a wholesale dealer. It holds a licence under the U. P. Hand Printers and Hand Dyers Licensing Order, 1949. On 1-7-1951, the Government issued a Notification No. ST-1798/X-902(51)-49 wherein the Governor of the U. P. State notified that no tax was payable on the sale of cloth manufactured on handlooms with artificial silk, linen, flax and cotton or wool. In October, 1951, the applicant was required to pay the tax under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All578; (1955)IILLJ1All
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. against seven opposite parties in the following circumstances.2. The original writ application was presented on 28-2-1951. Amendments were made to it subsequently to an appreciable extent and a consolidated petition was subsequently filed on 21-9-1954. The reliefs claimed in this petition relate to the quashing and enforceability of a certain G.O. issued by the U.P. State Government on 11-1-1950, and to the quashing of the orders of the Conciliation Board, Industrial Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal.3. The G.O. No. 167 (ST) (II)/XVIII, dated 11-1-1950, was issued by the Governor of the United Provinces in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3, United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act No. 28 of 1947). The directions given are in two paragraphs.Paragraph 1 enjoins that every vacuum pan sugar factory in the United Provinces shall from the date of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1956All35
V. Bhargava, J. 1. The Modi Food Products, Limited, Modinagar, district Meerut, the applicant in this reference under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, is a manufacturer and dealer in non-edible oils. The U. P. Sales Tax Act came into force with effect from 1-4-1948, and, under Section 3 of that Act, tax was payable on sales of various goods including non-edible oils at the uniform rate of 3 pies per rupee on all sales. In Section 3 of that Act, as originally passed, it was laid down that tax was to be paid on the turnover in an assessment year by every dealer but there was no clear specification as to which turnover was to be taken into consideration. In Section 7 of the Act, it was laid down that, for purposes of assessment, every dealer was to file a return of his turnover of the previous year within 60 days of the commencement of the assessment year. This provision in Section 7 was amended by the U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (U. P. Act No. 25 of 1948) which came into force In the month o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All562
Sahai, J.1. This is a reference by a learned Single Judge of this Court under Chapter V Rule 6 of the Rules of Court. The following question has been referred to us for answer: 'Whether the interpretation put by the Full Bench has the effect of cutting down the powers conferred by Order 41, Rule 33, and if so, to what extent'?The Full Bench case to which reference has been made is the case of 'Rangam Lal v. Chandu' 34 All 32 (A).2. The facts of the case are given in full in the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4-9-1953, disposing of the second appeal and in his order dated 1-2-1955 referring the question formulated above to a Bench of two Judges. Under the circumstances it is not necessary for us to give the facts of the case in detail.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, that the plaintiff filed a suit for removal of obstruction placed by the defendants over a rasta by constructing a wall over it, and for the issue of an injunction. His case was that he was using th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1962CriLJ247
ORDERA.N. Mulla, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Rae-Bareli, in a case under Section 488 Cr.P.C.2. Shrimati Kulsum Bibi had filed an application under Section 488 Cr.P.C. against Abdul Shakoor, her husband, claiming maintenance for herself as well as their three children. Abdul Shakoor resisted the application on the ground that he had divorced Shrimati Kulsum Bibi earlier and he was ready to maintain her children, The trial Court disbelieved the story of divorce set UP by Abdul Shakoor and ordered that he should pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25/- per mensem to Shrimati Kulsum Bibi and Rs. 15/- per mensem to each of the three children.Abdul Shakoor went up in revision against this order and the learned Sessions Judge maintained the order of the trial Court as far as it related to the maintenance; of the three children. It, however, felt that the order awarding maintenance to Shrimati Kulsum Bibi was not justifiable in view of several decisions given by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All568
Mootham, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of a learned Judge of this Court dated 6-12-1954.2. The appellant was a clerk in the East Indian Railway employed in the office of the Divisional Superintendent, Lucknow. In March 1948 complaint was made against him that he had committed certain rationing offences; an enquiry was held by the railway authorities as a result of which the appellant was suspended and charges were framed against him. That was in September 1948. The appellant submitted an explanation, but the Divisional Superintendent found the charges to be proved and by an order dated 20-10-1948, he directed that the appellant be removed from service.3-4. On 22-10-1948, the appellant was accordingly served with a notice in the following term:'REMOVAL NOTICE As your services are no longer required by the the Administration, you are hereby removed from service by my order in terms of your agreement and condition of service, and you are hereby given one month's pay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1956All68
Mukerji, J.1. This is a second appeal from order against the decision of a Judge hearing an insolvency appeal. The case raises an important and an interesting question of law.2. The facts which give rise to this question, briefly stated, are these: On 4-9-1947, two creditors of one Noor Ahmad applied under Section 9, Provincial Insolvency Act for declaring Noor Ahmad an insolvent. In their petition they stated the act of insolvency to have been a transfer by Noor Ahmad of his entire immovable properties, by a sale deed dated 4-6-1947 in favour of Abdul Aziz, the opposite party to this revision.3. Noor Ahmad was declared an insolvent on 9-1-1948, by the Insolvency Judge. The Insolvency Judge found that the transfer by Noor Ahmad of his immovable properties made on 4-6-1947, in favour of Abdul Aziz had been made with the object of defeating his creditors. The act of Noor Ahmad in making the transfer of his entire immovable property to Abdul Aziz with the object of defeating and delaying ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All506; 1955CriLJ1230
Upadhya, J.: 1. This is a reference by the Addl. Sessions Judge of Banaras at Jaunpur recommending that an order passed by Shri N. K. Roy, Magistrate, First Class committing the accused to Sessions be set aside and that this Court should order that the commitment proceedings be started afresh. 2. The case originally started on the complaint, of one Sub Karan filed against the accused and some others under Section 498/109, I. P. C. The case came up for hearing before Shri Jagdeo Prasad, Magistrate, Second Class Jaunpur, who recorded some evidence in the case. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the girl Sm. Phula was only 14 years old and that in his opinion an offence under Section 366, Penal Code, was made out. He, therefore, stayed the proceedings and submitted the case to the District Magistrate with a report that the case being triable by the Court of Session and not by him should be transferred to some other Magistrate for proceeding under Chapter 18, Criminal P. C....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All678
Agarwala, J. 1. This is application in revision arising out of arbitration proceedings. The parties referred a suit to arbitration. There was an award. The defendants-applicants filed objections to the award and prayed that the award be set aside. The trial Court rejected the application, refused to set aside the award and then proceeded by the same order to pass a decree in terms of the award. Thus the orders refusing to set aside the award and directing that a decree be passed in terms of the award were passed as a composite order on one and the same date.The plaintiffs opposite parties filed an appeal to the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate Court set aside the award and remanded the case to the trial Court for decision according to law. An objection was taken before the lower appellate Court that the appeal was incompetent. That Court rejected the objection.2. In this revision application it has been urged that the appeal to the Court below was incompetent. Learned coun...
Tag this Judgment!