Allahabad Court December 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.
Ram Rakhpal Vs. Amrit Dhara Pharmacy and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All683
Desai, J.1. This is a suit for the removal of an entry of the trade mark Amritdhara from the register of trade marks, for adding a note of disclaimer of any exclusive right to the word Amritdhara to the entry relating to the trade mark in the register and for imposing such limitation or condition on the registration of the trade mark Amritdhara as this court may deem just and proper. It is an admitted fact that on 21-8-1942 Pandit Thakur Dutt Sharma, defendant No. 2, managing proprietor of the Amritdhara Pharmacy Ltd., Dehra Dun, defendant No. 1, made an application No. 3813 before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay, defendant No. 3, for registration of trade mark Amritdhara in class 5 of pharmaceutical substances.The trade mark was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal as required under Section 15(1) of the Trade Marks Act (Act No. V of 1940), but nobody objected to the registration of the trade mark. Consequently the Registrar registered the trademark on 16-2-3946 with effect from ...
Ranbir Singh Vs. Superintendent, Small Arms Factory
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All274
Beg, J. 1. This is a special appeal against an order of a learned single Judge. It arises out of a writ petition filed by the appellant Sri Ranbir Singh against the respondent who is the Superintendent of the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur. Sri Ranbir Singh was a Machinist, Grade (C) in the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur, which is one of the Indian Ordnance Factories, under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. His appointment to this post was made by the respondent, 2. On 5-1-1955 a verbal complaint was made against the appellant by the Supervisor. On the basis of this complaint, the appellant was served with a charge-sheet dated 5-1-1955, calling upon him to show cause against two charges, namely, (1) assaulting Shri S. Roy, Supervisor, and (2) causing cessation of work and thereby causing loss to Government, 3. Thereafter a Court of Enquiry was constituted by the respondent to try the appellant in respect of the charges framed against him. The said Court of Enquiry framed a charge a...
Durgapal Singh Vs. Kunwar Jahan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All257
Desai, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against whom a decree for ejectment has been passed by the courts below. The connected appeal is by another defendant against whom in another suit a decree for ejectment has been passed by the courts below at the instance of the same plaintiffs. Since the same questions are involved in the two appeals they are being disposed of together.2. The respondents, claiming to be tenants of the plots in dispute in the two suits, sued the appellants for ejectment on the ground that they had taken unlawful possession of the plots: The suits were filed in the court of a Munsif. They were contested by the appellants on various grounds but not on the ground that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to hear and determine them. The defence failed in both the suits with the result that they were decreed.Appeals were filed against both the decrees; the appellants pleaded for the first time in the lower appellate court that the learned Munsif had no jurisd...
Sita Ram Vs. Shahngu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All261
M.L. Chaturvedi, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of a learned Judge of this Court dismissing a first appeal from order filed by the appellant.2. The appellant filed a suit in the Court of Munsif for partition of certain property. That suit was decreed and the defendant filed an appeal against that decree. Notice was issued on that appeal, and the plaintiff (appellant) entered appearance through a counsel on the date fixed for filing his vakalatnama. The Court then fixed the 2nd March, 1951, for the hearing of the appeal, but as neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared before the Court at the date of hearing the proceedings against him were ex parte.Judgment was reserved and it was delivered on the 14th March, 1951, allowing the appeal in pArticle Before the Judgment was delivered the appellant had made an application on the 5th March, 1951, that the order directing the proceedings against him to be ex parte be set aside, and on this application an order was passed that it...
Union of India (Uoi), Through General Manager, Northern Railway Vs. S. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All259
Randhir Singh, J.1. Both these appeals have been heard together as they arise out of two similar suits in which tile parties were common and which were disposed of by a single judgment.2. The two suits were instituted by Sri S. Bagchi, plaintiff-respondent, for the recovery of damages in respect of two consignments of oranges booked from railway station Kalambha to Lucknow, Both of these consignments were full wagon-loads of oranges. One of them was consigned on the 21st of March, 1946, and the goods were loaded in wagon No. 18182.The second consignment was also booked from the same railway station Kalambha for Lucknow on the 21st of April, 1946. The first consignment was delivered at Lucknow on the 30th March, 1946 and the second consignment was delivered at Lucknow on the 3rd May, 1946. It was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff in the two suits. that the goods which were oranges were booked to be carried by passenger train but the railway did not carry out the contract of carrying th...
Lala Ram Vs. Lala Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All383
Gurtu, J. 1. The facts which give rise to thisappeal may be briefly stated as follows: 2. Om Prakash, defendant No. 2, and the plaintiff were partners. The partnership was dissolved and accounts were taken and it was agreed that the plaintiff would get all the assets and discharge all the liabilities of the partnership and that the defendant No. 2, would receive as his share a lump sum of money. 3. When the plaintiff examined the partnership accounts, he found a debt item recoverable from defendant No. 1 Bankey Lal. A suit was filed by the plaintiff against Bankey Lal defendant No. 1 and Om Prakash defendant No. 2. Against Bankey Lal, the cause of action was the debt owing to the dissolved partnership. Against Om Prakash the cause of action as stated before me now seems to be founded on the allegations that Om Prakash had not kept the account books correctly and what had been shown as a debt due to the firm from Bankey Lal was in fact not a debt due from him but was a repayment of a pa...
Ratan Prakash Garg Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1956
Reported in: (1957)IILLJ185All
Asthana, J.1. The appellant Ratan Prakash Garg, who was employed as store-keeper-cum-well supervisor in the district of Bulandshahr, has been convicted under Section 161, I.P.C., and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default three months' further rigorous imprisonment by the Special Judge, Bulandshahr.2. It has been contended before me on behalf of the appellant that the learned Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try the case as there was no sanction for the prosecution of the appellant as required under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947). This section runs as follows:No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 165, I.P.C., or under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous santion-(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connexion with the affairs of the federation and is not removable from...
Nilamber Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All381; 1957CriLJ620
Chowdhary, J.1. This is an appeal by one Nilamber Joshi who has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Kumaun for an offence punishable under Section 409, I. P. C., and sentenced to one year's R. I. and to a 6ne of Rs. 100/- or, in default of payment of fine, to further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. The appellant was a postman at the post office at Almora, and he has been convicted for having dishonestly misappropriated a sum of Rs. 30/-which is said to have been entrusted to him for disbursement under a money order, the remitter of the amount being one Uttam Singh and the payee Mohan Singh, a student of the Degree College at Almora.2. The prosecution case was that two money orders were received at the post office on 10-6-1952, the payee of both of which was one and the same person, Mohan Singh. The amount under one was Rs. 20/- and that under the other Rs. 30/-. Both the money orders & the amount thereof were handed over to the appellant, but while he did pay the amount...
Dr. L. Raymond Vs. Florence Bessie Yakchee
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All207
Beg, J. 1. This is a court-fee matter arising out of a reference under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act. There is no dispute about the facts relating to the present case. The sole question that arises is one of law, and relates to the amount of court-fee that would be payable on the application for the grant of a probate of the Will of one Ernest Raymond Yakchee who died on the night of the 9th/10th September 1954. The deceased had executed a Will in respect of his property on the 16th July, 1946. On 15-1-1955, en application for the grant of a Probate of the said Will was made by the Rt. Rev. Dr. L. Raymond, the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Allahabad. The property which was the subject-matter of the Will was valued at Rs. 5,09,179/-. The office assessed the court-fee at an amount of Rs. 31,553-3-0. This assessment having been contested by the applicant, the matter was placed before the Taxing Officer. The Taxing Officer, being of the opinion that the question involved in the...
Chaman Lal Seth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All241; (1958)IILLJ380All
ORDERMootham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which has been filed in the following circumstances: The petitioner was formerly in the police service in Sind, now West Pakistan. In 1947, at the time of partition he came to the United Provinces, and on the 20th August, 1949, he was appointed a Sub-Inspector in the United Provinces Police on probation for two years from the date of joining the force. This he did on the 31st August, 1949. The letter of appointment read as follows:-- 'Appointment of Displaced persons as S. Is. in U. P. You are appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the scale of Rs. 120-6-180-E. B. 10-200 plus usual dearness allowance admissible under the rules and posted to Unnao in a vacancy. You should report to the Superintendent of Police, Unnao, at once. No. V-1530-47, dated August 20, 1949. Copy forwarded to the Supdt. of Police, Unnao for information and necessary action. The candidate will be appointed on probation for a period of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »