Allahabad Court March 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 Kishan Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All462
ORDERAsthana, J.1. The applicant Ram Kishan has been convicted under Sections 325 and 379, I. P. C. and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/- under Section 379, I. P. C. and to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 325, I. P. C. by a First Class Magistrate of Jalaun, which conviction and sentence has been upheld in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Orai.2. It appears that the applicant and three other persons were found stealing the crops of one Sher Ali. When Sher Ali came to know of it he went to his fields and challenged the applicant and his companions. They threatened to beat him. He then went to the Sarpanch Budh Singh and reported the matter to him. Budh Singh sent for the applicant who had taken the bundle of stolen crops to his house.It is said that the applicant admitted before the Sarpanch that he had committed the theft of the crop. Thereupon Eudh Singh sent for the chowkidar Sikandar Ali and asked him to take the applicant to the police station. While the ...
(Mahant) Parshotam Das Vs. Prem Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All665
Agarwala, J. 1. This is an application by a receiver appointed by this Court during the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court. The prayer of the applicant is that the order of the court below be set aside and he be permitted to obtain actual cultivatory posses sion over the Sir and Khudkasht lands in dispute in. the case, 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as-follows. The suit out of which the Supreme Court-appeal has arisen was filed by one Mahant Uma Shankar against the applicant Mahant Prem Das for possession over the endowed property of which the last Mahant was one Bhola Das. Uma Shankar claimed to be the Chela of Mahant Bholadas and duly elected as the Mahant ofthe estate after the death of Bholadas. This claim was contested by the applicant Mahant Prem Das who claimed himself to be entitled to succeed as Mabant after the death of Mahant Bholadas. 3. The property in dispute included certain Sir and Khudkasht plots. During the pendency of the suit, the Court below...
Jugal Kishore Baldeo Sahai Vs. the Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All670; [1956]30ITR600(All)
Agarwala, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by an assessee against whom an order of assessment under Section 23B, Indian Income-tax Act has been made. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family carrying on business at Kanpur. The assessments for the years 1943-44 to 1949-50 were duly completed but there was an appeal and the assessment orders were set aside and the Income-tax Officer was directed to make fresh assessments after taking into consideration certain objections whichwere raised by the assessee in respect of the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer.After the remand while these cases were pending before the Income-tax Officer, he proceeded to make a provisional assessment under Section 23B, Indian Income-tax Act. This section provides that the Income-tax Officer may, make a provisional assessment in advance of the regular assessment on the basis of the returns filed by the assessee and the accounts and documents supplied by him.The provisional a...
Khadim HusaIn Khan and ors. Vs. Abdur Rahman Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All575
Randhir Singh, J.1. This second execution of decree appeal raises two short but important points of law. One Nawab Sardar Ali Khan obtained a decree for the possession of a house known as Kothi, on 17-4-1939 against Nawab Abdul Eahman Khan. A sum of Rs. 467/4/3 was awarded as costs of the suit. An appeal was filed against this decree but it was dismissed on 30-1-1945. Sardar Ali Khan, however, died shortly thereafter on 13-3-1945.Two applications for execution were made, one on behalf of Waqar Ali Khan, son of Sardar Ali Khan, and another by Smt. Shahzada Begam, daughter of Sardar Ali Khan. Both of these applications were made in 1945, but they were dismissed it appears, for want of prosecution. On 27-1-1948 another application for execution was made by Shahzada Begam and she claimed possession of the house as also the amount of costs decreed in favour of her father.An objection was then filed by Abdul Rah-man Khan, judgment-debtor, on two grounds: It was contended that Shahzada Begam ...
Kunwar Sri Tri Vikram NaraIn Singh Vs. the Government of the State of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All564
Bhargava, J. 1. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of my brother Mehrotra, J, and agree with him but I would like to add a few words on the merits of the case. 2. The facts brought out in this petition show that originally the Sanad granted in favour of B. Ausan Singh conferred on him the rights of a proprietor in the pergana and he became entitled to realise the revenue which was payable by the sub-proprietors instead of the Government. Subsequently, however, this grant was resumed and it was decided that his successor B. Shiv Narain Singh was to be considered as the Tehsildar of Pergana Syudpore Bheittree and was to be allowed to hold the office hereditary. B. Shiv Narain Singh and after him his son B. Har Narain Singh did not agree to work as Tehsildars and to bear all expenses of administration and loss in collection. Ultimately this dispute ended in the grant of a sum of Rs. 36,330/- as pension to B. Har Narain Singh and his heirs, the amount being calculated on the ba...
Jagannath Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All655; 1956CriLJ1270
Mukerji, J. 1. This is a Government Appeal against the appellate order of acquittal of the respondent Jagannath of an offence punishable under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, for contravention of Clause 24 (1), Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948 passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Moradabad.2. The facts, which are no longer in dispute, were these : Moti Ram was the proprietor of a firm carrying on, under the name and style of Moti Ram and Sons, the business of selling cloth as a licensed dealer in the town of Amroha, and his brother, the present appellant Jagannath was his agent or salesman.In a test purchase organised by Sri D. K. Bhattacharya, Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Amroha, Jagannath sold a pair of dhotis to constable Roop Singh in the view of Sri Ram Ratan Naib Tahsildar of Amroha on 15-2-1951 for a price higher than the controlled price. This amounted to a contravention of Clause 24 (1) of the said Order. There was also contravention of Clau...
Madhoban Dass Vs. Mannoo Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All672
Mehrotra, J.1. This is a Special Appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting the petition filed by the present appellant before him under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. A suit was filed against the present appellant for recovery of arrears of rent. An adjournment was sought by the defendant-appellant and he was grant-ed adjournment on payment of rupees fifteen as adjournment cost and on condition that he deposits the entire arrears in cash within a certain time. The appellant then applied for the modification of that order and the learned Judge directed that the adjournment will be granted on his furnishing security to the extent of the amount of arrears.3. A petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution in this Court on the ground that the order of the Judge directing the defendant to furnish security for the amount of arrears was illegal. He has relied on Order 9, Rule 13 and Order 17, Civil P. C., and his contention was that there are ex...
The State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Mahendra Pratap Pitamah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All585
Brij Mohan Lall, J.1. This is a special appeal by the State Government and the Director of Elections against a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution the election of the Chairman and members of the Town Area of Kerakat. The judgment appealed against was delivered on 22-4-1955. A decree was prepared by the office.An application for a copy of the decree was made on 13-5-1955. The copy was ready for de-livery on 22-8-1955. The delivery was actually taken by the appellant on 24-8-1955. The memorandum of appeal was presented on 23-9-1955. The question that has arisen before us is whether the memorandum of appeal wag presented with-in time. The period prescribed for preferring a special appeal by Rule 10 of Chapter IX of the Rules of Court Vol. I is 60 days.2. It may be pointed out at this stage that the appellants have, by way of precaution, made an application for condonation of delay also under Section 5, Limitation Act but that app...
Hira Lal Chaudhary and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All619; 1956 Cri LJ 1165
ORDERV.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is a composite application under Section 435 read with Sections439 and 561-A Cr. P, C. and under Article 227 of the Constitution praying that certain criminal proceedings pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly under Sections 406, 408 and 409 read with Sections 34 and 109 and 420, I. P. C. be quashed.2. The facts of the case as disclosed in the affidavit accompanying the application in brief are given herein. There is a joint stock concern of the name & style of Messrs. Mira Lal Debi Prasad Ltd., having its heart office at 23/24 Radhey Bazar, Calcutta, of which petitioner No. 1 is the managing director and petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 are the directors. The Indian Turpentine and Rosin Com., Clutterbuck Ganj Bareilly (hereinafter called the Bareilly Firm), through whom the State is represented in this case as an opposite Party, are manufacturers of rosin and turpentine.There was an agreement on the 23rd May 1949 by which Messrs. Hira Lal Debi P...
Vindhyachal Tewari Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All663
Agarwala, J.1. These are three connected applications under Article 226 of the Constitution. The prayer in each case is that the order of the Board of Revenue dated 30-8-1955 and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 4-7-1953 be quashed. The facts briefly stated are as follows :2. Two persons Mahudeo Prasad and Jagat Nandn were zemindars of about four annas share in a village and had certain sir and khudkasht lands. In 1921 they executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of one Ham Lal for a sum of Rs. 4999/-. On 1-8-1931 they executed a second usufructuary mortgage in favour of four persons, Subedar Singh, Rajdeo Singh, Jamuna Singh and Alakhdeo Singh for a sum of Rs. 7000/-, Heaving sufficient amount in the hands of the mortgagees to redeem the earlier usufructuary mortgage and to enter into possession of the mortgage property.The second mortgagee redeemed the earlier mortgage and entered into possession. The rights of the mortgagors Mahadeo Prasad, and Jagat Narain came to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »