Allahabad Court October 1956 Judgments
G.K. Sinha Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All152; (1957)ILLJ263All
M.L. Chaturvedi, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of a learned Judge of this Court dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellant was employed as an Inspector in the Central Excise Department. On 20-8-1952 the Central Government issued a notification declaring that it had created a selection grade of Excise Inspectors and the selection grade would constitute 15 per cent. of the total cadre of Inspectors. In pursuance of the above notification on 27-2-1953, the Collector of Central Excise Allahabad, passed an order appointing the appellant and 59 others to the selection grade, and these appointments were to take effect from 1-8-1952.In making these appointments the Collector had passed over a number of Senior Inspectors and they made a representation to the Central Board of Revenue and to the Government of India against the appointments made by the Collector. The representations were considered by the Government and it came to ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Murli Manohar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All159
Mootham, C.J.1. These are petitions in which the validity of a cess or tax imposed by the State Government on sugarcane entering the premises of sugar factories in the Uttar Pradesh is challenged.2. Section 29(2) of the United Provinces Sugar Factories Control Act, 1938, (hereinafter called the 1938 Act) empowered the Governor, after consulting a Sugar Control Board established under the Act, by notification to impose a cess on the entry of sugarcane into any local area specified in the notification for consumption, use or sale therein.Notifications were issued under this section at the commencement of each crushing season imposing uniform cess of three annas a maund on sugarcane entering the premises of all vacuum pan sugar factories as defined in the Act within the Province or State. The last notification under this Act was published on the 15-11-1952.In 1953 the 1938 Act was replaced by the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953, (hereinafter called the 1953 A...
Tag this Judgment!Arya Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lala Channoolal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All400
ORDERRoy, J.1. These two civil revisions by the defendant arise out of two different orders passed in the same suit. The suit was instituted by Chhannoo Lal, the plaintiff-opposite-party, for recovery of certain sum as salary. Under the provisions of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure the defendant, on an application by the plaintiff dated the 22nd of August, 1953, was called upon to answer certain interrogatories and to make discovery of certain papers. Twelve days time was initially granted to comply with the order. On the 5th of September,1953, time was extended by twenty days on defendant's application, which was again extended on 23rdSeptember, 1953, by three weeks. The defendant still failed to comply with the order, with the result that the court suo motu granted further time and itfinally passed an order on plaintiff's application No. 63-C dated 31st October, 1953, to the following effeet:'Defendant has not filed either answer or objection. The defence of the defendant is ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bharosey Vs. Pearey Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All265
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. This is an application in revision and arises in the following circumstances. The opposite parties Pearey Lal and another filed a suit for the ejectment of the defendant applicant from a shop.2. The trial court decreed the suit. The applicant filed an appeal in the lower appellate court.During the pendency of the appeal, the parties agreed to refer the matter in dispute to arbitration through the agency of the Court. The Court referred the dispute to an arbitrator on 10th April 1951. The arbitrator made an award and filed it in court on the 30th April 1951. The Court ordered the parties to file objections, if any, by the 30th May, 1951. On the 30th May, 1951 no objections were filed as no notice was actually issued to the parties. When the Court noted this fact, it adjourned the case and directed that notice-on respondent be issued by means of the service of a card, and as appears from the order-sheet, the signature of the counsel for the defendant-applicant was obt...
Tag this Judgment!Ajab Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All153
Agarwala, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The applicant is a tenure holder in village Mundait in the district of Muzaffarnagar, Proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 were taking place in the village as also in certain other neighbouring villages. The Assistant Consolidation Officer formulated a statement of proposals under Section 19 of the aforesaid Act. The petitioner and certain other persons filed objections against the proposals. The consolidation officer heard those objections and decided them by his order dated 23rd July, 1955. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer there was an appeal before the Settlement Officer who dismissed the appeal by his order dated 20th August, 1955. Against the order of the Settlement Officer there was a revision which was dismissed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation by an order dated 9th November, 1955.2. In the statement of proposals made by the Assistant Consolidation Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Bachchan Lal Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All184; 1957CriLJ344
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Bachchan alias Doctor appeals against his conviction under Sections 147 and 302, read with Section 149, I. P. C. He was sentenced to death for the latter offence and the learned Sessions Judge has referred the case for the confirmation of the death sentence.2. The appellant, who was an agent for selling medicines, began to reside at the house of Nainsukh in village Bakhrauli, P. S. Tathia, district Farrukhabad, from some time in the second week of June 1955. On the night between the 19th and 20th of June he, Nainsukh and Nainsukh's sons, Shiam Behari & Prem Baboo, slept on different cots outside the house & in front of it, Nainsukh and the accused were found missing from their cots by Shrimati Raghbansi, wife of Nainsukh, when she woke up and went out after midnight to look after the cattle.She did not suspect anything as her husband used to go away for days without informing her & as the accused too used to go away for days. When Nainsukh did not return in the mor...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipal Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All205
Mootham, C.J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order of the Board of Revenue dated the 17th-18th July 1956. 2. The facts are these. On the 3rd of January 1955 the second respondent made an application under Section 34 of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act to the Tahsildar of Koil, in the District of Aligarh, that her name be entered in the annual register maintained under that Act as being in possession of a particular holding as the successor of one Smt. Dewalia deceased. The application was opposed by the petitioner who claimed to be the true owner, but an order was made by the Tahsildar directing that mutation of names be effected as asked for by the second respondent. That order was however set aside by the Commissioner on appeal by the petitioner. The second respondent then filed an application in revision before the Board of Revenue; and the Board by the order which is now being challenged allowed the application, set a...
Tag this Judgment!Aneg Singh Vs. Ram Prakash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All196; 1957CriLJ494
V. Bhargava, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Deputy Government Advocate.2. Rule 2(vii) of Chapter V of Rules of Court lays down that all criminal appeals, applications or references are to be heard by a Single Judge, except those which are mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) of that sub-rule. In the case of an appeal from acquittal Clause (b) is applicable provided the appeal has been filed by the State Government. If the appeal be by a complainant under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no provision In any of these Clauses (a) to (f) under which such an appeal is taken out of the jurisdiction of a Single Judge.An appeal by a complainant under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would thus be covered by the general words 'a Criminal appeal', and, consequently it is within the competence of a Single Judge to hear such an appeal. Consequently, our answer to the question referred to us is that an appeal filed by...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Raghunath Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All273
V. Bhargava, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State against an order of acquittal of the respondent, Raghunath Prasad, for an offence punishable under Section 3/6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933.2. The facts of this case, as found by the learned magistrate, are that Raghunath Prasad respondent had a broadcast receiving set for which he held a licence which was valid uptO' 31st December, 1952, On 13th October, 1952, he transferred that set to one Nathu Lal Agarwal. The case of the respondent was that that transfer was an out and out sale of the radio set but the case of Nathu Lal Agarwal was that the ownership in the set was not transferred to him but it was only pawned with him.The transaction has been described in this case by the prosecution witnesses and the learned magistrate, who tried the case, as a mortgage of the radio set. Under that transaction, the radio set passed from the possession of the respondent to the poseession of Nathu Lal Agarwal. Nathu Lal Agarw...
Tag this Judgment!Balbir Singh and ors. Vs. Executive Engineer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All204
Agarwala, J.1. This is a special appeal from an order of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing a writ petition.2. The appellants are residents of village Kheri Sarai, pargana Bhooma Sambhal Hera, post office Miranpur, District Muzaffarnagar. On the morning of 2nd of May 1953 the pucca head of the Betawali minor (sub-canal) was found broken by the canal patrol on duty. The matter was investigated, and it was found that the villagers of Mauza Kheri Sarai and other villages had derived benefit by irrigating their fields from the water from the canal.It could not be discovered who had broken the canal head. The Assistant Engineer recommended a punitive rate for this unauthorised use amounting to Rs. 20,858/2/- for all the four villages. This was reduced by the Divisional Canal Officer to a single rate which came to Rs. 10,429/1/-. This amount was further reduced by the Additional District Magistrate in appeal. He held that the appellants used the water on the days on which they w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »