Allahabad Court November 1957 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.
Rajni Kant Verma Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All360
ORDERV.G. Oak, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises the question of the validity of certain bye-laws framed by the Municipal Board, Allahabad. According to the petitioner's affidavit, he is the General Secretary of the Socialist Party, Allahabad. He wanted to organize a public meeting. He was in need of a loud-speaker. But he was unable to get any Loud-speaker.He was told that under bye-laws framed by the Municipal Board, Allahabad it is necessary to secure permission from the Executive Officer, Municipal Board for getting a loud-speaker. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus prohibiting the Municipal Board, Allahabad from enforcing the said bye-laws.2. The Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Allahabad has filed a counter-affidavit. A copy of the bye-laws in question has been filed. The material provisions of the bye-laws are that permission has to be taken for the use of loudspeakers. Further, certain fees have been ...
B. Bhagwan DIn Gupta Vs. B. Bisheshwar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All568
Randhir Singh, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act against the order of the Civil Judge, Hardoi, dismissing the objections of the appellant to the award and making it a rule of the Court.2. It appears that the applicant and opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 were the sons of one Ajodhia Prasad, and Smt. Rajrani Devi, opposite party No. 3, was the widow of Ajodhia Prasad. Ajodhia Prasad was possessed of moveable and immoveable property which passed to his three sons and his widow on the death of Ajodhia Prasad. Shortly after the death of Ajodhia Prasad, however, disputes arose with regard to the joint property and the parties ultimately appointed one Sri Mohan Lal, Advocate, Hardoi, who was a cousin of Ajodhia Prasad, as arbitrator, and ant agreement was executed on the 11th August, 1940.Thereafter Sri Mohan Lal, Advocate, entered upon the reference and meetings were held from time to time, extending over several years, which were attended by the parties. No...
Ram Chandra and anr. Vs. Lala Dulichand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All729
V. Bhargava, J.1. This is a plaintiff's first appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment of the defendant, who was a tenant of the plaintiff-appellant, of a cinema building known as Ram Hall in Kanpur. The plaintiff also sued for arrears of rent and for mesne profits for the period during which, according to the plaintiff, the defendant continued in possession after the tenancy had come to an end. According to the plaintiff, the tenancy was terminated by a notice dated 9-4-1946 calling upon the defendant to vacate the building in suit after 10-5-1946 after 12 O'clock in the night. The plaintiff also gave another subsequent notice dated 13-9-1947, in which he called upon the defendant to vacate Ram Hall by 10-10-1947 and deliver the possession of it to the plaintiff.Though the claim, as framed, based the case on ejectment on the earlier notice dated 9-4-1946, it appears that the subsequent notice dated 13-9-1947 was also mentioned in the plaint and during the trial of the suit reliance ...
Brahma DIn and ors. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Shukla
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All415; 1958CriLJ707
O.H. Mootham, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the District Judge of Kanpur concerning the conduct of aVakil practising in his court. The facts which are not in dispute, are these:2. In the year 1945 the Development Board, Kanpur, acquired certain premises belonging to two persons, Branhmadin and his brother Suraj Prasad, and a sum of Rs. 6,292/2/ was deposited with the District Judge for payment to them as compensation. Brahmadin and Suraj Prasad raised a dispute as to the amount of compensation and also sought to obtain the release of their premises. Their claims were rejected and in 1954 the premises were demolished. Thereafter they applied for payment to them of theaforesaid sum of Rs. 6, 292/2/ only to be informed that this amount had been withdrawn on behalf of Brahma Din by the Vakil in question in the year 1948.3. What happened in 1948 was that a person, who admittedly was not Brahma Din, approached the Vakil, and after informing him that he was Brahma Din and that both his b...
Beni Madho and ors. Vs. Thakur Manohar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All400
D.N. Roy, J.1. This is a decree holder's appeal arising outof proceedings under Section 8 of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act of 1940 for the amendment of decree. The appeal came up for hearing beforea learned single Judge of this Court. He has referred it to a Division Bench as the case is ofsufficient importance to merit decision by a Division Bench. The court of first instance held that the provisions of Section 8 of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act of 1940 were applicable to the case and that upon the reopening of the accounts the entire debt must be deemed to have been paid off.The court, accordingly under the provisionsof Section 7 of the Act, declared that nothing remained due under the decree and directed that the decree be amended accordingly. Against that decision an appeal was taken by the dcree-holders, but it was dismissed by the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court concurred in the decision of the first court by holding that Section 8 of the Act was applicable to th...
Mubarak Mazdoor Vs. K.K. Banerji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All323
O.H. Mootham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was a candidate for election to the Lok Sabha at the last general election held in March 1957 from an Allahabad Parliamentary constituency. The petitioner was defeated at that election, and on the 27th April, 1957, he filed an election petition before the Election Commission challenging the validity of the election of the successful candidate. The Election Commission appointed the respondent, who is a retired Judge of the High Court at Patna, as the Election Tribunal. In the petition which is now before us the petitioner contends that the respondent could not be appointed a member of an Election Tribunal under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and he prays for the issue of a writ, direction or order directing the respondent not to act as a member of the Election Tribunal.2. The main contention of the petitioner, who has argued the petition in person, is that the respondent was not qu...
Yaseen Khan Vs. the Sub-divisional Officer, Amroha, Moradabad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All511
ORDERV.G. Oak, J. 1. This petition for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari is directed against an order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Amroha allowing an, election petition. Yasin Khan petitioner and Chhiddu Khan (opposite party No. 2) were candidates for the post of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha of village Salarpur Khalsa, Pargana Amroha, district Moradabad. The Returning Officer declared Yasin Khan elected to the post of pradhan. Chhiddu Khan filed an election petition. On 22-3-1956 the learned Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the election petition, set aside Yasin Khan's election and directed that fresh election be held. Hence this petition by Yasin Khan. 2. A perusal of the order dated 22-3-1958 shows that, the election petition was allowed on the ground that the Place of polling was altered without proper notice to the voters. The main: point raised in the present petition by Yasin Khan is that, the point relied upon by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was not raised i...
Ram Kalap Vs. Banshi Dhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All573
D.N. Roy, J.1. This second appeal by the plaintiff has been referred to a Bench because of certain conflict of decisions of this Court. The suit was one for possession over certain zamindari property in two villages Krishnagarhpur and Bhulaipur. The property originally belonged to one Ram Samujh. On 20th September 1938, Ram Samujh executed a deed of gift in regard to this property in favour of the defendants. Ram Samujh later on instituted asuit for the cancellation of the deed of gift on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court reversed that decree and dismissed tihe suit. Against that decision Second Appeal No. 79 of 1941 had been preferred in the Chief Court of Oudh at Lucknow. During the pendency of the Second Appeal Ram Samujh died. A question arose as to who should be substituted in his place as representative in order to continue the appeal. Ram Kalap Pande, the present plaintiff came forward as legal repre...
Ram Kishun Tandon Vs. Officer in Charge Central Bank of India Ltd., Mu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All413
ORDERV.G. Oak, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writs of mandamus and certiorari. Ram Kishun Tandon petitioner was employed as a cashier in the Central Bank of India Ltd., Mutthigunj Branch, Allahabad. The Officer-in-charge, Central Bank of India Ltd., Mutthigunj Branch, Allahabad and the Chief Agent, Central Bank of India, Kanpur are the two opposite parties in this petition.2. The petitioner's case is that in September 1954, the Bank levelled against the petitioner charges of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of money. The petitioner was suspended from service. The petitioner was also prosecuted in the criminal court under Section 408, I. P. C. But the criminal court acquitted the petitioner on 30-9-1955. In spite of the acquittal from the criminal court, the Bank is taking departmental action against the petitioner in order to dismiss him from service. Such departmental action is prohibited under the law.The reason is that ce...
Banwari Lal Vs. Jagannath Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All717
D.N. Roy, J. 1. In a suit for the dissolution of partnership and for the taking of accounts filed by the plaintiff-respondent agajnst the defendant-appellant, the matter in dispute was referred to the arbitration of Sri Brij Nath Mittal, an advocate practising at Meerut. The agreement of reference, inter alia, provided that the arbitrator will be empowered to decide the points at issue between the parties after tile taking of evidence which the parties may choose to produce before him, or without taking evidence but on his own personal knowledge, and the award which he would thereafter make will be binding upon the parties.It further provided that it will not be incumbent upon the arbitrator to reduce evidence into writing. It also provided that he may decide the matter in any manner he thinks fit. The terms of agreement, therefore, clothed the arbitrator with full powers to decide the points in controversy between the parties (a) after the taking of evidence, or (b) on his personal kn...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »