Allahabad Court July 1956 Judgments
Raghubir Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All132; 1957CriLJ336
Chowdhry, J.1. This is an appeal by one Raghubir who has been awarded five years' R. I. and Rs. 200/- fine under Section 304, I. P. C by a learned Sessions Judge of Aligarh for having caused the death of Mangali infant daughter of one Chhidda at the house of Chhida in village Harji Garhi, P. S. Tap-pal, District Aligarh, at 10 a.m. on 19-4-1953. Half the amount of the fine: if realised, has been directed to be paid to Chhidda by way of compensation.2. It is common ground that the child met its death as a result of an incident that took place atthe aforesaid time and place. The defence version that the child was killed because it was thrown to the ground by its mother Govindi P. W. 2 was disbelieved by the trial Court, and quite rightly so. There Was no evidence in support of that version, and the post-mortem disclosed that the child died of a lathi injury inflicted on the left side of the head.3. The finding of the trial Court that the child died as the result of a blow from the lathi ...
Tag this Judgment!Srimahant Visheshwar Shivacharaya Mahaswami Mahant and anr. Vs. State ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All127
ORDERMehrotra, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the notifications under Sections 4, 6 and 9, Land Acquisition Act and that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the opposite parties not to proceed with the acquisition proceedings relating to the property in question.2. The facts briefly are that the applicant is a Mahant of a well-known Math in the city of Varanasi called Sri Jagat Guru Vishwaradhya Singhasan or Jangamwudi Math being in existence for several hundred years. The Math owns several properties including the disputed plot which is situated just in front of the main building of the Math across the road.The land is enclosed mostly by houses and on one side by a pucca wall. Within this enclosure on a portion of the land there are temples and samadhis of disciples, who, according to the tenets of the Shaiva sect, come and die in Varanasi and are buried there in the enclosure. The contention of the...
Tag this Judgment!Shahzad Khan Vs. Pt. Sheo Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All133
V.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order under Section 152, Civil P. C, refusing to amend the decree in the suit. 2. The facts of the case are that on 26-7-1901 a mortgage deed was executed by Bhairon Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant, in favour of four persons who are now represented by the opposite parties. The plots mortgaged were 25 plots and the area of the plots given in the mortgage-deed was 40 bighas, 8 biswas and 14 biswansis and was situate in village Dhuremau, district Rae Bareli. 3. In the plaint the property was -described as 29 plots measuring 19 bighas, The suit was decreed and the entire decretal amount has been deposited and the property redeemed. It is alleged that the plaintiff is in possession of the entire mortgaged property, i.e. 40 bighas, 8 biswas and 14 biswansis. Some mistake cropped up in the decree on account of wrong description in the plaint. The application was opposed by the opposite party in the Court belo...
Tag this Judgment!The Sales Tax Officer and ors. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Makund Lal Sarraf
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1956
Reported in: [1956]7STC658(All)
Sarraf Mootham, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment of this Court dated the 1st December, 1955, dismissing an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Chaturvedi dated the 30th November, 1954. The applicants are the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, and the Sales Tax Officer, Banaras. The respondent firm is a dealer in bullion and in gold and silver ornaments, and as part, of its business it entered into forward contracts in silver. In respect of such contracts it was assessed to sales tax for the years 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1950-51 in a sum of Rs. 1,365-12-0 and these amounts it duly paid. Subsequently this Court held, and its decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit v. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash [1955] S.C.R. 243, that the provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act purporting to impose a sales tax on forward contracts were ultra vires ; and thereafter the respondent firm applied ...
Tag this Judgment!Girraj Kishore Vs. the State Through Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All129; 1957CriLJ332
ORDERRoy, J. 1. In my opinion no sufficient ground exists for interfering in this case. The facts are these:2. Upon an order in writing made by the Additional Medical Officer of Health, Agra, the applicant Girraj Kishore was prosecuted under S. 10, U. P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, 6 of 1912, for refusing to sell sample of ghee for analysis. When the matter finally came up before the Magistrate on 28-12-1951 the Magistrate upon an application of the Municipal Board of Agra made under S. 248,Criminal P. C. allowed the complaint to be with drawn because the complaint was not founded upon proper authority and the Magistrate acquitted the accused.By a resolution dated 19-9-1950, the Municipal Board of Agra authorised the Medical Officer of Health under Section 12, U. P. Prevention of Adulteration Act as the person who can make the order for prosecution under the Act. By a subsequent resolution dated 30-8-1951 the Municipal Board of Agra in-eluded the Additional Medical Officer of Healt...
Tag this Judgment!Bachan Pande and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All130; 1957CriLJ333
ORDERAsthana, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 439, Criminal P. C. by Bachan Pandey Alias Bachan Ram and 15 other persons who 'have been committed by a Magistrate 1st Class of Gorakhpur to the Court of Session, Gorakhpur, to stand their trial on charges under Sections 120B, 342, 384 and 389, I. P. C. The applicants first filed a revision against theorder of committal before the learned Sessions Judgeof Gorakhpur on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge bad no jurisdiction to try the charge ofconspiracy under Section 120-B, I.P.C. as that offence wascommitted within the jurisdiction of the SessionsCourt at Ghazipur. This revision was rejected bythe learned Sessions Judge and so the present revision has been filed in this Court. 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused had formed a conspiracy to earn money by filing false cases against innocent persons in Courts outside the districts of their residence, thereby causing unnecessary harassment to them;...
Tag this Judgment!Chote Lal Vs. Mangali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All135
V.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a property, house No. 211, in village Pareli, Pargana Haidrabad, district Kheri.2. The facts of this case are that this house belongs to one Chandan, He had two sons Bhanj and Bhawani, Bhawani had three sons, Baldeo, Niranjan Lal, and Mangali. Baldeo's widow was Tikana and their son was Gulab. On 5-10-1929 Baldeo mortgaged this house along with some cane crop and a she-buffalo for a loan of Rs. 250/- with one Pandit Jagannath. The plaintiff Chhotey Lal had obtained a decree previous to this mortgage on 27-10-1927 against Niranjan Lal and in execution of the said decree this house along with another house, No. 204, was attached.. The property does not appear to have been sold under that attachment.But on 1-2-1930 Niranjan Lal mortgaged these two houses to the plaintiff. On 27-5-1937 Niranjan Lal converted the mortgage into a sale. The plaintiff was never able to obtain possession of either of the houses....
Tag this Judgment!Panna Lal Babu Lal Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All710; [1956]7STC722(All)
Upadhya, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Revising Authority under the U. P. Sales Tax Act. 2. The assessees. Messrs. Pannalal Babulal of Kanpur, were assessed to a tax of Rs. 2,343-12-0 on a turnover of Rs. 1,50,000 for the period from 1st April to 8-6-1948. They prefeired no appeal against the assessment but filed an application in revision under Section 10 of the Act to the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax. 3. The assessees are a firm of commission agents. In the ordinary course of their business they made purchases and supplied goods to their contituents and were paid commission on the goods so supplied. These supplies were treated as sales by Sales Tax Officer and assessed to tax, although the assessses contended that they were merely purchasing agents for their customers find the supply oft goods made by them to their customers was not a sale but performance of their duty as agents. It was, however, found that when the assessees made purchases for making such supplies, the person...
Tag this Judgment!Janki Prasad and ors. Vs. Kailash and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1956All735
Randhir Singh, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court, dated 12-8-1955.2. It appears that in execution of a money decree for Rs. 9,716/11/- a house known as 'Maiku Lal Bhawan' was attached and sold at auction. The house was purchased by Janki Prasad, applicant 1, in execution of the decree which stood in favour of Sm. Tara Devi who is dead and is now represented by applicants 2 and 3. An objection was raised by Ham Narain, father of opposite party 1, and by opposite party 2 who had purchased the property from the judgment-debtor Ram Narain before the auction sale.The learned Civil Judge dismissed the objection and upheld the auction sale. The opposite party then instituted an appeal against the order of the Civil Judge and this Court set aside the order passed by the lower Court and also the auction sale made in favour of applicant 1. The applicants now wish to go in appeal to the Supreme Court and it is contended that th...
Tag this Judgment!Sales Tax Officer and ors. Vs. J.L. Morison Son and Jones (India) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1956
Reported in: [1956]7STC755(All)
1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Chowdhary, dated the 4th March, 1955, quashing an order of assessment dated the 16th March, 1952, made by the Sales Tax Officer, Banaras, against the respondent company.2. The respondent company is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and has its registered office in Bombay. It has branch offices at Calcutta, Madras and Delhi, but it is common ground that it has no office or agent within this State. In the course however of its business the company supplied goods to persons in the United Provinces. These goods were despatched by rail to purchasers in this State by the company's branch office at Calcutta where payment for the goods was made.3. In respect of the assessment year 1948-49 the respondent company was assessed to sales tax on the turnover of the goods despatched from Calcutta to the United Provinces. The company, in the petition out of which this appeal arises, challenged the validity of the assessment on two grounds. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›