Allahabad Court March 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.
Mst. Mojiza Khatoon Vs. Mst. Sayeed Fatma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All752
Srivastava J. 1. The opposite party No. 1 filed an application for permission to sue as a pauper. In that application she claimed Rs. 10,000/- with interest thereon and also claimed- certain amount as damages for certain moveables. While this application was pending she applied to the Court that she be permitted to reduce her claim to a sum of Rs. 10,000/-only and be permitted to pay court-fee thereon. This application was allowed. She paid court-fee and her application was ordered to be registered as a plaint.Against this order one of the defendants has come up in revision and contends that the learned Civil Judge before whom the application for leave to sue had been filed, had no jurisdiction to convert the application into a plaint and to allow court-fee to be paid even though the claim hadbeen reduced. If as was admitted the applicant was not in fact a pauper the application under I Order 33 was bound to be rejected. The applicant could then file a plaint with proper court-fee.2. T...
Dr. Ishwar NaraIn Sinha Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All439
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff's removal from service was unjustified, illegal and wrongful and that he should be deemed to be continuing in service and further that a decree for Rs. 4,725/-as compensation for the period the plaintiff was illegally deprived to serve the Government be passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. The facts giving rise to the suit are as follows:2. The appellant Dr. Ishwar Narain Sinha was appointed as a temporary Assistant Medical officer of what was formerly known as O. T. Railway in the year 1945. He was admittedly appointed by the Principal Medical Officer of that Railway and was at first posted to Gorakhpur and then transferred to Samastipur Railway Hospital. He was confirmed on the 21st February 1946.The letter of confirmation addressed to him. was on behalf of the Chief Medical Officer. There is a little dispute as to who in law would be deemed to have confirmed the appellant ...
State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. Vs. Mukhtar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All505
Desai, J.1. This is an application, purporting to be under Order 45, Rule 13, C. P. C., for the issue of an order staying operation of the order passed by this Court on October 8, 1956, in Writ Petition No. 252 of 1956 and maintaining the status quo as regards possession over the land covered by the orders of the consolidation authorities. The facts leading to this application are as follows:2. Under Section 26 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (No. 5 of 1954) possession of some land belonging to opposite parties Nos. 1 to 11 was transferred to other tenants of the village, who are opposite parties 12 to 16. After exhausting the remedy as provided in the Act against the transfer they filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, Mukhtar Singh v. State of U. P. : AIR1957All297 . A Bench of this Court quashed the orders of the consolidation authorities regarding transfer of possession of the Opposite parties' land on 8th October, 1956 on the ground that Section 14 (ee) of the...
Radha Kishan and anr. Vs. Sapattar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All406
Mukerji, J.1. This is a first appeal from order dismissing the objection, of the appellants to an arbitration award.On the 3rd of August 1951 a reference to arbitration was made by Sapattar Singh as party no. 1 and Radha Kishan and Tegh Singh as party no. 2 for the settlement of certain disputes that had arisen between them in respect of a brick kiln business, to the arbitration of certain named arbitrators. An award was made on the 11th of November 1951. On the 21st of November 51 Sapattar Singh filed an application for calling for the award from the arbitrators and making it a rule of the Court. Notices were issued and a written statement was filed on behalf of the appellants to the effect that there was no dispute between them and Sapattar Singh, because the real person who was interested in the brick kiln business and with whom there was a dispute of Sapattar Singh was one Deo Raj and that the appellants were only his karkuns and, therefore, there could be no dispute with them. The...
Rama Transport Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All448; [1957]8STC725(All)
M.L. Chaturvedi, J.1. This is a petition under Article 220 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing certain Notifications issued by the respondents, and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to enforce the provisions contained in Section 16 of the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act XIX of 1956 and also the provisions contained in Rule 83 of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules. 2. The petitioner is a transport company which transports goods for hire between Delhi and certain towns in the State of Uttar Pradesh. While coming from Delhi, its vehicles have to pass in some cases through Ghaziabad in the district of Meerut and in other cases through Kosi Kalan in the district of Mathura. The original Sales Tax Act did not contain any provision for setting of check barriers at places where the vehicles entered the State, of Uttar Pradesh. The State Legislature passed the U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1956, adding Section 28 to the U. P. Sales...
Fasahat Ali and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All449
Mootham, C.J. 1. This is a petition under Article 286 of the Constitution in which the petitioners seek to havequashed an order of the Board of Revenue dated the 29th November, 1956. The facts necessary for the decision of this petition can be stated very shortly. 2. A building in Lucknow was ordered to be sold in proceedings under the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act. A sale proclamation was duly issued In which it was stated that the sale would take place on the 31st March, 1949, at 2 p.m. in the Raushan-ud-Daula Kutchery. The sale did not in fact take place on that date but was postponed to the 8th April 1949. On the 5th April, that is three days before the sale, the Deputy Commissioner directed that the sale should be held at the site of the building. No fresh proclamation of sale was issued. On the 8th April the sale was held and the building was sold for Rs. 48,500. An objection to the sale was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner by an order dated the 18th April, 1949, and an appeal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›