Allahabad Court September 1956 Judgments
Firm Kalka Pd. Ram Charan Vs. L. Kunwar Lal Thapper and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All104
Gurtu, J. 1. One Baijnath Sayal received a telegram purporting to be from L. Kunwar Lal Thapar. A request was made in that telegram that Baijnath Sayal should send Rs. 4000/- by draft to Kunwar Lal Thapar c/o Messrs. Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers. L. Baijnath Sayal went to Imperial Bank Delhi and purchased a draft. The draft was drawn by the Imperial Bank Delhi payable to Kunwar Lal Thapar by the Imperial Bank Kanpur. The draft was duly posted and it was taken delivery of not by Kunwar Lal Thapar but by another person, Inder Raj sethi. Either Inder Raj Sethi or some other person took the draft to firm Kalka Prasad Ram Charan. That person had a letter of introduction to. the firm from Baijnath and Co. That person said that he wished to buy certain goods from firm Kalka Prasad Ram Charan. He endorsed the draft as Kunwarlal Thapar and handed it over to firm Kalka Prasad Ram Charan. They in their turn made an endorsement in blank in favour of the Bharat Bank. This draft was entered in a ...
Tag this Judgment!Hameed Khan Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All121; 1957CriLJ169
Randhir Singh, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Lucknow. Originally it came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court, He was of opinion that this reference should be placed before a Divisional Bench as the authorities were not all uniform. This has therefore, come up before us,2. It appears that one Ishtiaq had absconded while he was on bail and proceedings under Sections 87 and 88, Criminal P. C. were ordered to be taken against him. Some moveable property was attached. One Hamid Khan made a claim before the Magistrate who was seized of the case that the property which had been attached belonged to him and his family and that Ishtiaq was not the owner of the property.The learned Magistrate who heard the claim, however, rejected it. The applicant then went up in revision to the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that there was no evidence in support of the contention .that the property belonged to Ish...
Tag this Judgment!Behari Ji Maharaj Vs. Dauji Maharaj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All266
Agarwala, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision Arising out of a suit for removal of an encroachment. The parties are two idols which are installed in two adjacent temples. The plaintiff's temple is in the south-west corner of the defendant's temple. The southern and western walls of the defendant's temple were reconstructed or repaired and the plaintiff-opposite party's case was that in the process of reconstruction or repair encroachment of 1 foot in the width and 14 feet in length had been 'made into the land belonging to the plaintiffs temple. This would be at the south-west corner of the defendants temple. The defence was that there has been no encroachment.2. The decision depended mostly upon measurement. The parties made a statement in court. The statement was that if the defendant's southern wall was 25 feet or less in length from the Government Takia the plaintiff's suit will stand dismissed, but if the wall were longer the plaintiff's suit will be decreed. This s...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Pal Singh Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All122; 1957CriLJ170
V. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a revision filed by one Surendra Pal Singh who has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 409, Penal Code, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- and, in default of payment of fine, to three months' further rigorous imprisonment. 2. The findings of fact recorded by the lowerappellate court are that the applicant realised asum of Rs. 596/14/- from certain cultivators onaccount of canal dues in his capacity as extra canalamin and deposited only a sum of Rs. 398/4/6 outof it in the Government treasury. The excesssum of Rs. 198/9/6 was not deposited in the treasury, though it was realised from the cultivators.The circumstances justify the presumption thatthis amount had been misappropriated by the applicant. It further appears that the sum of Rs. 596/14/-realised by the applicant was not really due from those cultivators as canal dues. The sum due was Rs. 398/4/8 and that was the sum which, after realisation, was...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Awtar Krishna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All88; 1957CriLJ167; [1957]8STC244(All)
V. Bhargava, J.1. These are two appeals by the Government against the acquittal of the respondent Autar Krishna who was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 14(b), U. P. Sales Tax Act on two different counts. For two years in succession the respondent was assessed to Sales Tax and notices of the assessment were served on him demanding payment of the amounts assessed within 16 days in both the years, These demands were in accordance with Section 8, U. P. Sales Tax Act. The respondent did not make payments within the time allowed.Later on, notices were served on him to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for committing the offence punishable under Section 14 (b), U. P. Sales Tax Act. No adequate cause having been shown, complaints were filed in court. In the trial Court, evidence was led to show that the respondent had been assessed in both the years and had not paid the amounts of tax due within the time allowed to him under Section 8, U. P. Sales Tax Act.In spite o...
Tag this Judgment!Triloki Nath Tripathi Vs. Allahabad Divisional Branch of All India Pos ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All234
ORDERMehrotra, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings of the meeting held on the 3rd of September, 1956, and further to issue a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 who are the Allahabad Divisional Branch of the AH India Postal Workers Union Class III and Sri R.C. Srivastava, Secretary of the Allahabad Divisional Branch of the All India postal Workers Union Class III.2. The postal employees of class in formed a union known as the All India Postal Workers Union Class III. It was registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 . The Union has a provincial branch known as the All India Postal Workers Union (Class III) U. P. Circle Branch. The dispute relates to the Allahabad Divisional Branch constituted under Rule 38(iii) of the Constitution. The petitioner is a member of the Allahabad Divisional Branch, opposite party No. 2 is the Secretary and opposite parties Nos. 3 to 10 are also members of t...
Tag this Judgment!Shravan Kumar Gupta Vs. Superintendent District Jail and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All189; 1957CriLJ427
V. Bhargava, J. 1. This, petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented by Shravan Kumar Gupta requesting this Court for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus in respect of 8 persons Radhey Shiam, Joshi, Pujari Tika Ram, Thakur Lakhi singh, Bharat Singh, Loharey Singh, Teja Singh, Hoti Lal and Bam Singh, who were being detained in the district jail Mathura under warrants issued to the jail authorities by the Sub-divisional Magistrate Chhata. The circumstances under which these persons were detained, as given by Shravan Kumar Gupta, are that all these 8 persons as well as the petitioner Shravan Kumar Gupta are members of the District Hind Kisan Panchayat, Mathura or the District Socialist Party of Mathura. These two parties decided to hold a Workers' Training Camp with some public meetings on the 6th, 7th and 8th of August, 1956 in village Chaumha Sub-Division Chhata, district Mathura, The place for the camp so fixed is a local ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajodhya Prasad Vs. Chiranjilal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All246; 1957CriLJ438
Mukerji, J. 1. These are two connected revisions arising out of the same conviction. Revision No. 1535 of 1953 is by the applicant Chiranji Lal who was convicted under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to a further rigorous imprisonment for two months; and the other connected revision, namely, Revision No. 2001 of 1953, is by Ajodhya Prasad, who was the complainant in the case in which Chiranji Lal was convicted. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated were these: 3. Chiranji Lal, the applicant, was a business man who did some business at Mahoo in the district of Jaipur (Rajasthan). It appears that he had a brother named Moti Lal who was known to a firm called Hiralal Ajodhya Prasad a firm of Commission Agents having an Arhat shop at Shahjahanpur. Ajodhya Prasad and Bam Saroop (P. W. 7) were partners of this firm. It appears further that Moti Lal had some time done some busines...
Tag this Judgment!Dildar HusaIn Vs. Abdul Moid
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All238
Agarwala, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against an order of the Court below rejecting the appellant's application for setting aside an ex parte order dismissing his suit in the absence of the plaintiff.2. The facts shortly stated are as follows:3. The plaintiff Dildar Husain filed a suit' against the defendant-respondent Abdul Moid for possession over a certain property and for accounts. A rival suit was also filed by the defendant Abdul Moid for an injunction restraining the plaintiff-appellant Dildar Husain from interfering with Abdul Mold's possession over the property in dispute. The two suits were consolidated and were being heard together. There was an order of injunction passed against the plaintiffDildar Husain in Abdul Moid's suit. The date fixed for final hearing in the two cases was the 1st February, 1951. Two days earlier, namely, on the 30th January, 1951, in Abdul Moid's suit the order of injunction had been discharged. On that date, Dildar Husain, the present plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Pt. Chandra Dhar Dube and ors. Vs. Ram Janki and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1957All90
Beg, J.1. This is an appeal from an order under Section 16A, Court-fees Act. It arises out of a suit brought by three plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 1 alleges himself to be thetrustee and manager of the property dedicated infavour of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3, who arc the deitiesin whose favour the property is said to have beendedicated under a deed executed by one Smt. Janki.The aforementioned three plaintiffs came to courtseeking the following reliefs: 1. That it be declared that the sale deed executed by Smt. Sunjhari in favour of Sri Ram Janki dated 14-10-49, in respect of the house in suit is void ab initio and does not affect the title and interests of the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3; 2. If it be found that the plaintiffs are not In possession of the house in suit, then possession be delivered to the deities who are plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 by ejecting the defendants. 2. The trial court held that so far as the first relief is concerned, it involves cancellation of or adjudging void a sale de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »