Allahabad Court February 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.
Shamshul Hasan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All413
Desai, J. 1. The question before me is of the court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal. The appeal has been filed under the proviso to Section 50, U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act from a decree of a compensation officer dated 9-10-1954, Under Section 344 of the Act the Government has the power to make rules providing for the court-fees payable in respect of appeals under the Act.On 30-6-1952 the State Government made rules which were published and placed before the Legislature on 9th and 10th July 1952 as required under the section. Rule 61 of the Rules, as originally framed, laid down that 'ad valorem' court-fee was payable on appeals to the High Court under Sections 51 and 58 and to the District. Judge under Sections 50 and 57 and that in other cases the court-fee pay-able was as on an appeal from an order under the Court-fees Act.The court-fee payable on a memorandum of appeal from an order is Rs. 3/12/-. Since the present appeal is neither under Section 51 nor un...
Puttu Lal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All705; 1956CriLJ1381
Mehrotra, J.1. This reference has been made to a Bench by a single Judge of this Court.2. The facts of the revision are that one Nan-koo was prosecuted under Section 379, 1. P. C. in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kaimganj, district Far-rukhabad. He was released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs. 500/- and furnishing two sureties, of the like amount. Puttu Lal and Jagannath, who are the applicants executed a joint surety bond on 17-12-1952 in which they undertook to produce the accused in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kaimganj during the hearing of the case or in the court of the Sessions Judge.The case was subsequently transferred from the court of the Judicial Magistrate, sadar. After the transfer of the case, the accused appeared at several hearings in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sadar but on 26-5-1953, which was one of the dates fixed, he did not appear and the surety bond was forfeited Notice was issued to the sureties to show cause why the amoun...
Hanuman Dass Vs. Pirthvi Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All677
Mootham, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the revision of an order of thelearned first Civil Judge of Kanpur dated 3-3-1953.2. The circumstances in which that order was made are these. A dispute arose between the partners of a firm carrying on business in Kanpur under the name of Hanuman Das Rup Kishore, and in 1947 a suit was filed against the present applicant and one Radha Kishan, since deceased, by the remaining partners for the recovery of a sum of a little over Rs. 2,71,000/-. Subsequentlyan application was made by the plaintiffs, and allowed by the Court, for the amendment of the plaint, and from the order an application in revision was filed in this Court.While that application was pending one of the four plaintiffs, Raghubar Dayal, died on 28-5-1952, and on 5-11-1952, two applications were made by the widow and son of the deceased plaintiff. The first of these applications was for an order to set aside the abatement of the suit...
Hiralal Barman and ors. Vs. Sub-divisional Officer, Hathras and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All428
Mehrotra, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that (1) a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the realisation proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hathras, regarding the arrears of sales tax against Messrs Ramchand Spinning and Weaving Mills, Hathras, District Aligarh. (2) that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the opposite party not to enforce the demand of sales tax by arrest of the applicants or attachment for sale of their personal properties. (3) a writ of prohibition be issued directing the opposite parties to refrain from arresting the applicants or attaching or selling their personal properties in enforcement of demands of sales tax against. Messrs Ramchand Spinning and Weaving Mills, Hathras. 2. There is a registered partnership firm carrying on business under the name and style of Messrs Ramchand Spinning and Weaving Mills, Mursan Gate, Hathras, district Aligarh. The firm owns the mills and deals in cloth, arid yarn after ...
Khubi Ram Brij Kumar Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All445; [1956]7STC813(All)
Mootham, C.J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a firm carrying on the wholesale cloth business in the town of Pilkhuwa in the district of Meerut. The respondent is a Sales-tax Officer, Ghaziabad. 2. For the purpose of its business the petitioner purchased cloth from dealers and other persons in the Uttar Pradesh and also from dealers outside this State. In the case of cloth acquired from outside the State the usual practice was for the dealers to despatch the cloth to the petitioner by railway. The consignors at the same time despatched to a bank at Pilkhuwa the relative railway receipts drawn in favour of 'self', together with Hundis in respect of the price of the consignment, and upon the petitioner returning the Hundis the bank endorsed the railway receipts in favour of the petitioner who then took delivery of the consignments. In some cases the consignors sent the goods to the petitioner at Pilkhuwa by motor truck, the price of these go...
Jagdish Chandra BhasIn Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All436
ORDERRandhir Singh, J. 1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari for the quashing of an order of dismissal of the applicant passed by the opposite party and for a direction to the opposite party to reinstate the applicant to his post. 2. It appears that the petitioner was an Inspector of Shops and Commercial Establishments in the employ of the opposite party in 1950. Complaints were received against the applicant of corruption and a trap was laid for the detection of the crime. As a sequel to the trap laid, the applicant was prosecuted under Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was arrested on 20-12-1950 and was placed under suspension with effect from that date by the opposite party. On 4-1-1951, about a couple of weeks after the prosecution was launched, a charge-sheet was submitted in connection with disciplinary action in departmental proceedings. Nothing further was done for some time for inquiring into the charges served...
Abdul Shakur and ors. Vs. Kotwaleshwar Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All403
V.D. Bhargava, J.1. The two questions which have been referred to this Bench for decision are:'1. Whether the presumption mentioned in Clause (a) of Section 118, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, can be invoked in insolvency proceedings where an alleged debt against the insolvent is called in question by the official receiver or by a creditor or by the insolvent? 2. If it can be invoked, would circumstances tending to make it doubtful that consideration passed under the negotiable instrument, even though coupled with a denial on the part of the maker of the instrument, suffice to deprive the creditor of the benefit of the presumption and inquire him to prove by evidence that consideration did actually pass?' 2. I had the advantage of going through the judgments of my brothers Agarwala and Desai, JJ. On the first question I am inclined to agree with my brother Desai, J. and I would only add a few words.3. Section 118, Negotiable Instruments Act appears in Chapter 13 of the said Act whic...
Lal Dharam Mirat Singh and anr. Vs. Kuar Man Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All477
ORDER1. These applications relate to extension of time for depositing the security required to be deposited in the case of an appeal of the Supreme Court and also for depositing the costs of the preparation of the record. The petitioner offered security in the shape of landed property and eventually he deposited Zamindari Abolition Bonds of the face value of Rs. 2,500/-.2. The decree of this Court was passed on 31-10-1954, and a certificate granting leave to appeal was issued on 10-10-1955. Under Order 45, Rule 7, C. P. C., the petitioner was required to furnish security in cash or in Government securities for the costs of the respondents and also to depositthe sum required to defray the expense of translating and generally preparing the record within 30 days of the date of the decree of six weeks from the date of the granting of the certificate.The rule provides for the extension of time in the former case by the Court in its discretion but the extension is not to exceed 60 days. In c...
Ch. MoinuddIn Vs. Deputy Director Military Lands and Cantonments, East ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All684
Agarwala, J.1. This is a writ petition directed against the Deputy Director of Military Lands and Cantonments, Eastern Command, Calcutta, the Military Estates Office, Agra Circle, Agra Cantonment, and the Collector of Moradabad. The applicant Moinuddin claims to be a tenant of agricultural land measuring 13.42 acres situated at Rajabpur, par-gana Amroha, district Moradabad. The land belongs to the Government for the purposes of the military department. The opposite party No. 2 the Military Estate Officer, Agra, being in charge of the land, filed a suit for ejectment of the applicant on 16-9-1952 which is still pending.On 9-7-1953 the Deputy Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Eastern Command, Calcutta, served a notice upon the petitioner asking him to vacate the aforesaid premises within 15 days. This notice was issued under Section 3, Government Premises (Eviction) Act (Act No. 27 of 1950). It wasreceived by the petitioner on 13-7-1953. On 28-7-1953 opposite party No. 2 the Mili...
Laljit Singh and ors. Vs. Pyarelal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All714
Agarwala, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of a learnedsingle Judge of this court rejecting a petition whichwas directed against an order made by a member ofthe Board of Revenue. 2. The facts, in brief, are these. 'The appellants filed a suit against one Bhup Singh under Section 175, U. P. Tenancy Act. That suit was dismissed by the Assistant Collector. An appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. Then there was a second appeal before the Board of Revenue which came up for hearing before a member of the Board namely Sri Abdul Rauf. He was of opinion that the appeal should be allowed, but under the rules of the Board no appeal can be allowed by one member unless the order is concurred in by another member. The record was therefore sent to another member of the Board namely Sri T. N. Srivastava for concurrence. Sri T. N. Srivastava considered that he should hear the parties before recording his concurrence and so he sent not...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »