Allahabad Court November 1956 Judgments
Jagat Behri Tandon and anr. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1956
Reported in: [1957]8STC459(All)
Mootham, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Chaturvedi dated the I7th January, 1955, dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. In 1948 the appellant entered into partnership with two other persons, Amar Nath and Kedar Nath, for the purpose of dealing in bullion and ornaments and in forward contracts in gold and silver. The business was carried on under the name of Messrs. Bans Gopal Amar Nath and each of the three partners had a one-third share. On the 16th July, 1950, Amar Nath retired from the partnership and on the following day the firm was reconstituted, the name being changed to Messrs. Bans Gopal Kedar Nath and the partners being the appellant and Kedar Nath each of whom had a half share. The reconstituted firm carried on the business previously conducted by the former firm and took over the assets and liabilities of the latter. The firm of Bans Gopal Kedar Nath did not succeed financially and disputes having arisen between the partners ...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Directors, Y.M.C.A. and anr. Vs. R.H. Niblett
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All219
Beg, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for damages. The suit itself was the result of certain differences that arose amongst the office bearers of a local association called the Allahabad Young Men's Christian Association (hereinafter called the 'Y. M. C. A.'). The Allahabad Y. M. O. A. is a body corporate, and is controlled by a Board of Directors.The Allahabad Y. M. C. A. has got several branches of which the Central Branch is the principal one. Each branch is controlled by a Committee of Management. The suit for damages was brought by Mr. R.H. Niblett, who was at the relevant time, the Chairman of the Central Branch of the Y. M. C. A., and the Vice-President of the Board of Directors. The damages were claimed against four defendants.Defendant No. 1 was the Board of Directors of the Y. M. C. A. It was sued through its President. Defendant No. 2 was Dr. Malvea, the President of the Board of Directors. Defendant No. 3 was Rt. Rev. Ralla Ram, a member of the Board of Director...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Ghani Vs. Vishunath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All337
Desai, J. The opposite party filed a suit against the applicant for possession of a piece of land after demolition of a construction made thereon by the applicant. For purposes of jurisdiction and also of court-fee he valued the land only according to its market price; he did not include the value of the construction standing upon it. An objection was raised by the applicant against the valuation and the court-fee paid on the plaint.The Munsif held that the correct value of the land was Rs. 1694/- and ordered the opposite party to increase the valuation to Rs. 1694/- and pay additional court-fee thereon. He assessed the value of the construction at Rs. 4623/- but was of the opinion that it was not to be taken into consideration in deciding the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee. Against his decision the applicant has come up in revision.2. There is a preliminary objection on the ground that the revision is not maintainable because the learned Munsif's deci...
Tag this Judgment!Pal Sing Vs. State Transport Authority Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All254
Desai, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of our brother M. L. Chaturvedi rejecting the appellant's petition for a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated .March, 5/6, 1954 passed by the State Transport Authority U. P. respondent No. 1 on appeal and a writ of mandamus directing the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur, to decide the appellant's application dated March 1 and 2, 1954, for renewal of two permanent permits granted to him and directing it to renew the permits in preference to issuing fresh permits to others.2. The permits in dispute are for the route Tirwa-Debiapur. The Regional Transport Authority decided to open this route for the first time in 1951 and invited applications for permits. The appellant applied for two permits and one Shyam Sunder also applied for one permit. The applications of the appellant were published in the gazette as required under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act No. IV of 1939) on 28-4-1951 while the application of Shyam Sunder w...
Tag this Judgment!Laurie E. Jacobs Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1956
Reported in: AIR1958All481; 1958CriLJ827
A.N. Mulla, J. 1. Appellant Laurie S. Jacobs was tried under Section 161, I. P. Code and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947). The trial Court convicted him under Section 161, I. P. Code and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months. It passed no orders in respect of the offence under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Against this order of conviction the appellant has come up in appeal. 2. The prosecution story is that the appellant was employed as shed-man in the Loco Shed, Jhansi in the year 1950. A temporary gang of labourers was recruited in October, 1950 to do some emergent work. The Divisional Superintendent had written to Sri R.A. Hassett (D.W. 2), who was the Running-shed Foreman at Jhansi at that time to recruit this gang. Sri Hassett asked the appellant to carry out the orders of the Divisional Superintendent and engage the casual labour in c...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Kishan Vs. Radha Kishan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All251
Desai, J.1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor against an order passed by the executing Court delivering possession over the property purchased by the respondents in auction sale in 1941. The sale was confirmed on 21-8-1941 after they had deposited the auction price amounting to more than Rs. 10,000/-. The assistance that the appellant has received from one Court after another in keeping the respondents out of possession of the property, to which they became entitled on payment of the price in 1941, is simply scandalous.The appellant had not suffered any harm by the auction-purchase and was entitled to no redress. Court after court on a vain attempt to do justice to him has in fact heaped injustice upon injustice upon the respondents. The question before the executing Court was whether the respondents were entitled to be put in possession of the property under Order 21, Rule 95, after more than 12 years of the auction-purchase. It was decided in favour of the auction-purchasers and...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sunder Devi and anr. Vs. Jhaboo Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All215
Randhir Singh, J. 1. This second appeal arises an interesting point of law. 2. It appears that one Srimati Kaniz Begam started living with one Maheshi Lal sometime about the year 1892. Maheshi Lai was a Hindu while Kaniz Begam was a Muslim. There were some children born of Kaniz Begam and begotten by Maheshilal and they are plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 to 5. Kaniz Begam continued to live with Maheshi Lal till his death in about 1941 and she herself died in 1946. She left some movable property in the shape of a share in a sugar mill and, according to the plaintiffs, also some jewellery etc. The share and jewellery were taken over by defendants 1 to 4 and the suit which has given rise to this appeal was then brought for the recovery of this property on the allegations that Srimati Kaniz Begam had been living with Maheshi Lal as his wife, that she had also undergone a regular ceremony of conversion in the year 1927 and that she died as a Hindu woman in 1946. The property in dispute...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Hiralal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All342; 1957CriLJ614
Roy, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquital of Hira Lal passed in appeal by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge of Allahabad. The respondent was prosecuted of charges under Section 408, I. P. C. (Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant) and 477A. I. P., C. (falsification of accounts) and he was convicted and sentenced by a Magistrate under both the sections. In appeal the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge found that the charges were not proved beyond doubt and held that the accused was entitled to an acquittal. 2. Hira Lal respondent was serving as aMunim in firm Sundarram Ramphal. He was responsible for the maintenance of accounts and for the handling and disbursement of cash. One Jagdeo had an account with this firm. On the 10th February, 1949, corresponding to Magh Sudi Duadashi, Sambat 2005, a sum of Rs. 596/7/ was said to have been advanced from this firm by the respondent to Jagdeo. A slip of account was said to have been given in the handw...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Laxmi Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All343b; 1957CriLJ616; (1957)ILLJ487All
Roy, J.1. The Inspector of Factories inspected the factory in question belonging to the respondent on the 12th December 1951 and found that manufacturing process was being carried on with the aid of power without a certificate of stability of the building having been obtained by the respondent as required by Rule 3 (3) of the U. P. Factories Rules 1950 framed by the State Government under Section 6 of the Factories Act of 1948. The failure to do this was an offence punishable under Section 92 of the Act. Under Section 106 of the Act, no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act unless complaint thereof is made within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector.A complaint for that offence should have been lodged within three months from the above date i.e. within 12th March 1952. No complaint was, however, made in regard to that offence. The Inspector again visited the factory on the 19th Dece...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board Vs. Jai Engineering Works Ltd. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All244
ORDERMehrotra, J. 1. This is a petition on behalf of the Municipal Board, Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the order of the Additional Commissioner dated the 20th of August 1955 and that the opposite party No. 1 Jay Engineering Works Ltd., be directed not to apply for refund in enforcement of the above order. 2. The facts mentioned in the affidavit are that Messrs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd., opposite party No. 1, carry on the business of sale ofUsha Sewing Machine. In the course of their business they import sewing machines within the octroi limit of Allahabad Municipality. In June 1954 the opposite party No. 1 received 28 sewing machines and the dealers from whom the opposity party No. 1 had purchased the machines sent the railway receipt and the invoice. On the 17 of June 1954 the opposite party No. 1 brought the railway receipt and the invoice to the Head Octroi Office, Allahabad, under Rule 159 of the Municipal Ac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »