Allahabad Court August 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.
Sm. Pancho Vs. Ram Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All41; 1956CriLJ11
ORDERRoy, J. 1. This is an application in revision by Srimati Pancho against an order passed on 29-8-1953, by the learned Sessions Judge of Fyzabad confirming an order dated 10-6-1953 passed by a learned Magistrate dismissing the application of the applicant under Section 488, Cr. P. C. for maintenance claimed from the husband Ram, Prasad, the opposite party, in the sum of Rs. 50/-per month. The application of Smt. Pancho under Section 488, Cr. P. C. was founded upon three principal assertions, namely, that she was ill-treated by the husband and was turned out of the house by him about five years before the making of the application after having been beaten by him and that since then she is not cared for by him; secondly, that the husband has taken another wife about seven or eight years before the making of the present application; and, thirdly, that in proceedings before the Civil Judge the husband made a false imputation against her on 29-3-1952 that she is unchaste. The husband res...
Aziz Ahmad Vs. Sher Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All8
Mootham, C.J. 1. The question which has been referred to this Bench is 'Whether a surety is discharged when the creditor allows the execution of his decree against the principal debtor to be barred by limitation.' 2. This Court has consistently taken the view that a surety is discharged when a creditor allows his remedy against the principal debtor to become baried under the law of limitation, but a different view has been taken by the other High Courts in India and by the former Chief Court of Oudh (see -- 'Hajarimal v. Krishnarav', 5 Bom 647 (A); --'Bireshwar Chatterji v. Saidpur Commercial Bank Ltd., 41 Cal WN 1361 (B); -- 'Subramania Aiyar v. Gopala Aiyar', 33 Mad 308 (C); -- 'Nur Din v. Allah Ditta', AIR 1932 Lah 419 (D); -- 'Jagdambika Pratap Narain Singh v. Tir Singh Bahadur Singh 1941 Oudh WN 473 (E)) and in -- 'Mahant Singh v. U Ba Yi the Privy Council expressed its preference for the reasoning of the majority. 3. In England a failure to sue the principal debtor until recovery...
Raghubir Saran Agarwal Vs. Ram Prasad Misra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All267; 1956CriLJ470
ORDERRoy, J.1. A complaint had been lodged by Raghubir Saran Agarwal in the Court of the City. Magistrate, Banaras, against two persons under Section 500, Penal Code on the allegation that certain utterances made toy them were defamatory to him. The City Magistrate convicted Munnisingh but he acquitted the other accused, namely, Sub-Inspector Ram Prasad Misra. Raghubir Saran preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge of Banaras against the acquittal of Ram Prasad Misra, but his revision was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 6-8-1953 on the ground that while making the order of acquittal the City Magistrate did not commit any illegality and that the order passed by him was not in any way perverse.Raghubir Saran Agarwal has come up in revision to this Court and it has been contended by him that the words imputed to Ram Prasad Misra were really defamatory and that Ram Prasad was not protected under Exception 9 of Section 499, Penal Code as was held by the Magistrate.2....
State Vs. Sheo Shanker
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All326; 1956CriLJ659
Desai, J. 1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur recommending that an order passed by a Judicial Officer be set aside and that the opposite party be awarded such sentence as this Court may consider proper.2. There is no controversy about the facts which are that the opposite party Sheo Shankar Lal misappropriated an amount of Rs. 15/5/11 in his capacity as Sajawal. He pleaded guilty to the charge under Section 409, I. P. C., and also refunded the misappropriated amount. He has been convicted by the Judicial Officer under Section 409, I. P. C., but on account of his being a young man of 18 years of age he has been released on probation under Section 4, U. P. First Offenders' Probation Act.The learned Sessions Judge, on being moved by the District Magistrate, has referred the case to this Court with the recommendation that the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 4, U. P. First Offenders' Probation Act be set aside and that the opposite party be sentence...
Mohammad Murad Ibrahim Khan and anr. Vs. Govt. of U.P. of Agra and Oud ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All75
Brij Mohan Lall, J. 1. This is an appeal by plaintiffs against a decree of the learned Civil Judge of Aligarh dismissing their suit against the Government of United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh.) The plaintiffs are a son and a daughter of one Mohammad Farahim Khan. In 1923 they were minors and their grandfather, Haji Mohammad Yusuf Khan, was appointed their guardian under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act by the District Judge of Aligarh. One Anwarullah, who claimed to be their maternal uncle, moved an application before the learned District Judge of Aligarh on 2-7-1927. In this application he pointed out that the minors were possessed of jewellery and that the guardian was indebted. He expressed an anxiety for the protection of the minors' property and made several prayers to the learned Judge including a request that the guardian might be called upon to produce the jewellery before the Court and that the same might, for the sake of safety, be deposited in bank or at any p...
Gopi Nath Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. and V.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All105; [1955]28ITR753(All)
V. Bhargava, J. 1. The assessee in the relevant account year ending with 9-7-1942, in respect of the assessment year 1943-44 was a Hindu undivided family carrying on a business in the name of Gopi Nath Agarwal and it consisted of Gopi Nath Agarwal himself and his two sons, Moti Lal and Murli Dhar. The family disrupted on 9-7-1942, and thereafter the business was carried on by a partnership firm in the same name of Gopi Nath Agarwal. During the assessment proceedings, therefore, the assesses was frequently described as a partnership firm and Gopi Nath and his two sons were described as partners of the assessee firm. In the relevant account year, however, the assessee was an undivided Hindu family and was assessed as such. On 18-6-1942 a partnership firm was started under a deed of partnership between three persons, Kailash Nath, Harish chandra and Satish Chandra. Kailash Nath and Harish Chandra were the brothers of one Purshottam Narain who was the son-in-law of the sister of Gopi Nath ...
Ranjit Singh Vs. State Through Bachi Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All134; 1956CriLJ185
ORDEROak, J. 1. This revision application arises out of a prosecution for defamation. Ranjit Singh applicant is Sarpanch of the Panchayati Adalat of Bhamanswal. There were two cross-cases pending between Har Singh and Gopal Singh before the Panchayati Adalat. Ranjit Singh Sarpanch was not himself a member of the Bench, which was trying the cases of Har Singh and Gopal Singh. Har Singh applied to the sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 85, Panchayat Raj Act, for quashing the jurisdiction of the Panchayat with respect to the two cross-cases.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate called for a report from the Sarpanch of the Panchayati Adalat in connection with the application under Section 85 of the Act. Ranjit Singh Sarpanch submitted a report on 30-11-1949. That report contained a number of imputations against two persons, Bachchi Singh and Gusain Singh. Bachchi Singh and Gosain Singh, therefore, filed a complaint against Ranjit Singh Sarpanch for defamation with respect to the matter contai...
Pulpil Singh Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1955All696; 1955CriLJ1553
ORDERRoy, J.1. This is an application in revision by Pulpil Singh against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Basti by which he confirmed an order of the learned Magistrate of first class convicting and sentencing the applicant under Section 411, I. P. C. to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default to a further three months' simple imprisonment.2. Certain bales of cloth were booked from Kanpur to Ghazipur city. The wagon containing those bales left Kanpur on 10-6-1951, The train reached Maghar Station on 11-6-1951 and on the verification by the railway authorities it was found that 32 bales were intact and one bale had been, tampered with from which certain articles were removed. The seal of the wagon was found damaged. When the wagon reached Lucknow five more bales were found missing. That was not the end of the matter. When the wagon reached Gorakhpur four more bales were found missing, Report was made with the police and investigation was taken...
Ram Chandra Sharma and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All4; 1956CriLJ2; (1956)ILLJ10All
ORDERRoy, J.1. This is an application in revision by Ram Chandra Sharma, Brijnandan, Niranjan Lal, Keshav Chandra, Jagdish Prasad and Hoti Lal Das who have been convicted under Section 92, Facto-lies Act, 1948, for the breach of Rr. 6 and 13, U. P. Factories Rules, 1950, framed under Section 6 of the Act and each of whom has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/-. A revision had been preferred by them before the learned District Magistrate of Agra, but it was dismissed on 20-7-1953.2. The applicants arc partners of a firm styled as Niranjan Lal Ham Chand which deals in motor-cars and motor parts in Agra. The firm had a workshop in Agra. On 27-11-1952, the Inspector of Factories visited this factory and found that inside the premises seventeen adults and a boy were employed in carrying out repairs, oiling painting, etc. of motor-cars with the aid of power. He further found that no application had been made to the Chief Inspector of Factories, Uttar Pradesh, along with Treasury Chalan in F...
Jograj Singh and ors. Vs. the State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1955
Reported in: [1956]7STC219(All)
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are said to be cultivators, who also prepare khandsari sugar out of sugar-cane grown by them. The other petitioners purchase sugar-cane juice and prepare khandsari sugar and molasses out of that juice. The State Government has imposed a sales tax on the sale of khandsari sugar at the rate of 6 pies per rupee acting under the provisions of Section 3A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Under Section 4 of that Act, certain articles have been exempted from the sales tax by the Act itself and a power is given to the State Government to exempt any other goods from the payment of sales tax by a notification published in the Official Gazette. In 1948 the State Government exempted khandsari sugar from sales tax. But by the notification of the 1st October, 1952, a single point tax on khandsari sugar had been levied at the rate of 6 pies per rupee. The present petition challenges the validity of that portion of Sec...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »