Allahabad Court January 1956 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.
Lakshmi NaraIn Sharma Vs. District Board, Gazipur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All433
Mootham, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 24-2-1955 dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant is one of the proprietors of a firm which carries on the business, 'inter alia', of running of flour mill, a rice mill and an oil mill at Nandganj in the district of Gazipar and within the jurisdiction of the Gaon Sabha of Barahpur. It appears that the three mills occupy one premises.2. On 27-3-1953, a set of bye-laws for the regulation and control of flour, rice and oil mills in the rural areas of the Ghazipur District was made by the District Board of Ghazipur under Section 174, District Boards Act, 1922. Bye-law No. 1 defined mills as including all flour rice and oil mills worked by any mechanical contrivance, and bye-law No. 2 provided that no person shall establish or maintain a mill within the rural area except in accordance with the conditions laid down in bye-law No. 3.Bye-law No. 3 specified the con...
Ram Chandra Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ270
Asthana, J.1. This is an appeal by one Ramchandra who has been convicted under Sections 304 find 324 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Budaun and has been sentenced to .seven years' R.I. under Section 304 & one year's R.I. under Section 324, I.P.C., the sentences to run concurrently.2. It appears that there was a case under Section 107, Cr.P.C. between the accused Shiamlal, Mamlal and Ramchaudra on the one side and Chandrapal Singh, his father Khem Singh and his uncle Jiwan Singh on the other. On the 5th of June, 1953, the sar of Chandrapal Singh caught fire. He was informed by some persons that the accused Shiamlal had been seen running away from the side of the sar. Thereupon he, his father Bhikam Singh and his undo Jiwan Singh abused Shiamlal and his brother.It is alleged by the prosecution that thereupon Shiamlal, Ramlal and Ramchandra came there, that Ramchandra was armed with a knife and the other two were armed with lathis, that Ramlal caught h...
Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All401
ORDERM.L. Chaturvedi, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner is a limited company and carries on the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. In September 1948, the U. P. Government passed an order under Section 3(b), U. P. Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 laying down the standing orders to be followed by the petitioner and other sugar factories.During the period that these standing orders were in force the Central Legislature passed the Factories Act of 1948, which came into force in April 1949. One of the questions that, arises for consideration is the interpretation of Sections 78 and 79, Factories Act. After the Factories Act had been passed, the State Government issued an order on 1-10-1951 again laying down certain standing orders mentioned in the annexure.Under Clause 9(12) of this standing order, the employers had been directed to pay wages for un-availed portion of leave to the workmen. Relying on the above clause, the workmen of the ...
The Banaras Ice Factory Ltd., Banaras Vs. the U.P. Government and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All730; (1956)IILLJ297All
Mootham, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from an order of Chaturvedi J. dated 28-3-1955, dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Disputes arose between the appellant Company and its workmen in respect of claims by the latter for bonus for the years 1949 and 1951. The dispute with regard to bonus for the year. 1951 was referred by the State Government to an Adjudicator who, by an award made on 23-7-1952, held that a bonus equivalent to two months' pay should be paid to each workman.The dispute with regard to bonus for the year 1949 was referred by the State Government to the State Industrial Tribunal which, on 28-11-1952 made a similar award. The company appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal from the award of the Adjudicator but that appeal was dismissed on 29-9-1953. The appellant Company did not make the bonus payments in accordance with the awards, and on 28-10-1953, the State Government, respondent 1, ordered the Collector of Banaras, respondent 3, to recover fr...
Mt. Daroupadi Debi and anr. Vs. S.K. Dutt and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All48
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. This is a defendants' appeal against the order of a learned single Judge allowing a second appeal holding that the plaintiffs could claim the right of privacy against the defendants and remanding the case to the first appellate Court for passing final orders in the light of the observation made in the order.2. The houses of the plaintiff-respondents and the defendant-appellants adjoin each other. They were constructed in 1928 and 1929 respectively on plots of land purchased from the Improvement Trust, Allahabad, about 1916. The Improvement Trust had demolished the old houses, acquired the site and then auctioned or sold the site in plots.3. Since the houses were constructed the parties have been to court twice before. The first suit was by the predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiff against the defendant or her predecessor-in-interest. It was also based on the allegation that the defendant of that suit had infringed the right of privacy of that plaintiff....
Kasim Bhai Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All703; 1956CriLJ1380
Asthana, J.1. The applicant Kasim Bhai is the proprietor of the firm Sattar Bhai Kasim Bhai Chemists and Druggists, in Bharthana, District Etawah. He was convicted by a first class Magistrate of Etawah under Section 27 of the Drugs Act, 1940; for contravention of Sub-rules (2) and (9) of Rule 65 of the Drugs Rules and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200/-, and also for contravention of Rule 110 to a fine of Rs. 50/-. His conviction was maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Etawah but the sentence of fine of Rs. 200/- for contravention of Sub-rules (2) and (9) of Rule 65 was reduced from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 100/-, The sentence of fine of Rs. 50/- for contravention of Rule 110 was, however, maintained. He has now come up in revision to this Court.2. It appears that the applicant has got a licence for the sale of medicines. The shop was inspected twice by the District Medical Officer of Health, once on 19-5-1953 and again on 30-5-1953, It was found that the applicant was in posse...
Abdul Aziz Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All637; 1956CriLJ1181
ORDERMulla, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, recommending that the conviction of the applicant in this case be set aside and the case be remanded for retrial in accordance with the law. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicant entered the house of one Deota Din on the 10th January, 1955, and committed a theft of about Rs. 20/-. Deota Din and his wife were not present in the house but before the applicant couldl ieave the house the wife of Deota Din came back and immediately raised an alarm. The applicant was arrested on the spot and a first information report was immediately written and the applicant was sent to the Police Station together with the report. The case came up for trial before a first class Magistrate who tried the applicant summarily under Section 380, I. P. C., and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. He dictated his order to the readier of th...
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. N.K. Govil (Happy India Insurance Company)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1956
Reported in: (1956)IILLJ296All
Mehrotra, J.1. The opposite party was tried by the City Magistrate of Allahabad under Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1947. The magistrate quashed the proceedings and ordered the complaint to be consigned on the ground that the cognizance of the case was taken after six months from the date of the alleged offence. The offence is alleged to have taken place on 11 October 1954. The complaint was filed on 30 December 1954. The complaint was, therefore, filed within six months of the date of the commission of the offence. The magistrate, however, relied on a single-Judge decision of this Court in Madan Lal Haweliwala v. State and quashed the proceedings on the ground that the cognizance was taken beyond six months of the date of the commission of the offence. Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Shops and Commercial Establishments Act provides thatNo Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder except on ...
Mukand Singh Vs. Vishnu Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All396; 1956CriLJ848
ORDERAsthana, J.1. This is an application In revision against the order of a first class Magistrate of Moradabad dismissing the complaint of the applicant Mukand Singh under Sections 331, 330 and 342, I. P. C. filed against the opposite parties, namely, Sri Vishnu Prasad, Deputy Superintendent of Police, and Zahir Ahmad, Head Constable, on the ground that the complaint was not entertain-able for want of sanction under Section 197, Criminal P. C., which order has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad.2. It appears that the applicant Mukand Singh filed a complaint on 10-8-1953 against the opposite parties on the allegation that he was taken to the Police Station Chhajlet on 16-6-1953 maliciously by the opposite party 2 Zahir Ahmad and a Sub-Inspector, and while he was detained there he was tortured, beaten and kicked on account of which he received grievous hurt and was in much pain for several days and had to be treated in hospital.It was also alleged in the complaint t...
DIn Dayal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All520; 1956CriLJ1031
ORDERRoy, J. 1. This application in revision raises a question of considerable importance, namely, whether the provisions of Section 10(2) of the U. P. Pure Food Act, No. 32 of 1950, are ultra vires of the Constitution in so far as they lay down that in any proceeding under the Act a certificate of a Public Analyst given under Sub-section (1) of that section shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. The applicant Din Dayal has been convicted under Section 42 of that Act read with Section 4.The charge against him was that on 3-7-1953, he sold adulterated ghee to the Food Inspector holding it out as pure ghee and that the article was not of the substance, nature and quality demanded by the purchaser. The Food Inspector, it is alleged, found the accused selling ghee as pure ghee. He purchased a quantity of the ghee and sampled it out in three phials and sealed them, and handed over one Of the sealed phials to the accused. One phial was sent to the Public Analyst for analys...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »