Allahabad Court October 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.
Pitambar Das Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ281
ORDERV.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution filed by one Pitamber Das who held license of two guns for several years. The license was in the name of his father and in 1937 was changed into his name when his father died. The petitioner's servant Ram Adhar on the 11th of January 1955 took one of the guns to the house of the cousin of the petitioner, Seth Puranmal, because there was Tilak ceremony. While the petitioner was busy this servant loaded the gun and fired it on the occasion of the tilak ceremony. The gun injured one Ram Khelawan a servant of Kashi and later on the servant was prosecuted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted.Thereafter the petitioner was also prosecuted under Section 22 of the Indian Arms Act but in the circumstances of the case the Magistrate took a lenient view of the case and released him under Section 3 of the First Offenders Act on admonition. Thereafter the petitioner applied for the r...
Dhoom Singh Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All197; 1957CriLJ431
Chowdhry, J.1. This is an appeal by one Dhoom Singh, aged 20 years, who has been convicted by the learned Additional sessions Judge of Muzaffarnagar under Section 302, I. P. C., for the murder of a 10 years old boy Ranbir singh and sentenced to death. The leference under Section 374, Criminal Procedure Code, for confirmation of the' sentence is also before us.2. Two brothers Baljit P. W. 1 and Chatra lived in separate houses in village Pachenda. The appellant is a son of Chatru. The deceased Ranbir and a 5 years old girl Ranbiri were Baljit's children by a concubine Gangadevi by name. She had deserted him 2 or 3 years previously. Baljit owned 7 bighas of cultivatory land, two houses and 3 heads of cattle.3. The prosecution case is that Baljit fell seriously ill about a fortnight before the occurrence so that his children had to find for their food from house to house. So after about a week of illness he called the appellant and entrusted to him the care of his children and property in ...
Bhagwan DIn Vs. Gouri Shankar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All119
ORDERRandhir Singh, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and decree passed by the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Lucknow.2. It appears that a suit was instituted by the plaintiffs opposite-parties on the basis of a pronote, for Rs. 260/- alleged to have been executed by the defendant. The defendant, filed a written statement denying the execution of the pronote. The plaintiff entered into the witness-box but examined no other witness. The defendant also entered into the witness-box and stated on oath that he had not put his signature on the pronote or the receiptThe learned Judge then compared the disputed signatures with some other admitted signatures of the defendant and came to the conclusion that the two signatures were made by the defendant. He then believed the plaintiff's evidence and decreed the claim. The procedure adopted by the learned Judge cannot be said to be good. It is no doubt open t...
Bhagwati Prasad Vs. J.K. Tandon and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All354
Mootham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which raises a question of some importance as to the powers of the Director of Elections appointed under the Panchayat Raj Rules.2. The relevant facts can be shortly stated. The petitioner and the third respondent were nominated as candidates for election to the office of Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha. Both candidates duly presented their nomination papers to the Assistant Returning Officer on the 23rd November, 1955, which was also the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations.The nomination paper of each of these candidates was, after scrutiny, accepted by the Assistant Returning Officer. On the 3rd December, 1955, the Assistant Returning Officer made an order rejecting the nomination paper of the third respondent on the ground that he, having been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, was disqualified from nomination, and on the following day, that is on the 4th December, the Assistant Returning Officer...
Dominion of India Vs. Gaya Pershad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All193
V. Bhargava, J.1. These four appeals arise out of four different suits which were numbered as Suits Nos. 64/5 of 1947, 72/10 of 1947, 73/11 of 1947 and 74/12 of 1947 in the trial Court. In all the four suits the plaintiffs and the defendants were the same. The suits all related to a claim made by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendants-appellants who are the two railway administrations at present known as the Central Railway and the Northern Railway and which, at the time of the suits were known as the G. I. P. Railway and the E. I. Railway; The claim was in respect of damages to baskets of oranges which were sent from the railway station Katol on the Central Railway to Lucknow on the Northern Railway. The consignors of the four consignments were different but the consignee in each case was the plaintiff-respondent. The first consignment in question was booked from Katol on the 21st of March, 1946 and the other three consignments were booked 011 the 22nd of April, 1946. In each...
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Bahadur Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All278; 1957CriLJ495
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J.1. This is an application under Section 526, Criminal P. C., by the State of Uttar Pradesh for the transfer of a Sessions Trial against Ram Bahadur Singh under Sections 302, 363 and 366, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code from the Court of Sri V. N. Prasad, District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, to some other Court outside the district of Kanpur on the allegations that the attitude adopted by the learned Sessions Judge as disclosed in the accompanying affidavit led to the apprehension that the evidence adduced by the prosecution subsequent to the commencement of the trial on the 9th of July, 1956, would not be adjudged fairlyand that the atmosphere of Kanpur was surcharged for the trial of the case at Kanpur. 2. The affidavit accompanying this application was sworn by Sri Ram Narain Kankan, Public Prosecutor, C. I. D... I. B., U. P., Kanpur. Ii may also be mentioned here that the investigation of this case was done by the Criminal Investigation Depart...
Ch. Mukhtar Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All297
Agarwala, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by certain tenure-holders of village Goharpur in Pargana Shamli, district Muzaffarnagar. The relief claimed in the petition is that a Writ of certiorari be issued quashing the orders of the Assistant Director Consolidation of Holdings, the Settlement Officer Consolidation of Holdings, and the Consolidation Officer making certain allotments of consolidated holdings in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 (Act No. V of 1954), hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation of Holdings Act,2. The petitioners are members of a registered co-operative society named The Goharpur Cooperative Agricultural Society Ltd. They are tenure-holders of land totalling about 100 acres. Tehsil Kairana in which the petitioners' village Goharpur is situated was put under the consolidation of holdings scheme some time in the year 1955. Originally the scheme affected 22...
Narsingh Singh Vs. Raghuvendra Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All82
H.S. Chaturvedi, J. 1. This second appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for possession brought under Section 183, U. P. Tenancy Act.2. The property in dispute was a four annas share in patti Abhairaji' of village Machura, pargana Mankapur, district Gonda.3. The material facts which are no longer disputed are as follows:One Ram Dutt Singh, who died in 1894, was the owner of the under-proprietary share in suit. On his death he was succeeded by his widow Shrimati Abhairaji who died on 15-12-1910, leaving behind her daughter Shrimati Gaya Dei, who admittedly became entitled to the property in suit. On 2-8-1934, Gaya Dei relinquished her rights in the property in favour of Narsingh Singh, the appellant. He happened to be the nearest male reversioner as his grandfather was the real brother of Ram Dutt Singh. It is no longer in dispute that the appellant is the owner of the aforesaid four annas share in suit,4. During has lifetime Shrimati Abhairaji, widow of Ram, Dutt Singh, executed...
The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. S. Raghubir Saran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All120
Agarwala, J.1. This is an appeal against an order recording a compromise.The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,600/- from the defendant-appellant, the Union of India. The sum claimed was in respect of loss incurred for nondelivery of goods delivered to the East Indian Railway. There was correspondence between the parties and during the course of this the Chief Commercial Manager of the E. I. R. wrote to the plaintiffs a letter offering a sum of Rs. 9,441/2/6 in full satisfaction of the plaintiffs' claim.This offer was accepted by the plaintiffs and they applied to the Court to record it. The defendant, however, objected to the adjustment being recorded on the ground that after it had made the offer it discovered that it had been procured by the plaintiffs on the basis of a forged beejuk and that, therefore, it was not binding on them.The defendants wanted to produce oral evidence to substantiate its plea of fraud but the lower court was of opinion th...
Anand Kumar Bindal Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Ors. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All136
Mootham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is the occupier of a factory in Saharanpur which is engaged in manufacture of cloth. He was called upon by the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 12,484 as a special contribution payable by an employer under Chap. VA of the Employees' State Insurance Act in respect of a period extending from 1st April 1953 to 31st March, 1955.The petitioner disputed his liability for payment of this sum or any part of it, and as a consequence of his refusal to pay steps are now being taken against him for recovery of the amount claimed as though it were an arrear of land revenue, and he is threatened with prosecution under Section 85 of the Act. The petitioner contends that the demand is illegal, and the principal relief which he seeks by this petition is the issue of a mandamus directing the respondents not to recover from him any contribution under the provisions o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›