Allahabad Court April 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.
Gobardhan Ram Bisheshar Ram Vs. Banarsi Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All805
1. This is an application in revision by the defendant against an order passed in appeal by the learned Civil Judge of Faizabad refusing to set aside an ex parte decree.2. The facts of the case are that on 18-2-1946 a suit was brought by the plaintiffs as against Gobardhan Ram and Bhagoti Ram. Gobardhan Ram is the present applicant and he was personally served with the notice of the suit. A written statement was Bled by him oa 15-4-1946. There was a preliminary issue involved in the case about the valuation of the suit and a commissioner was appointed for ascertaining the market-value.Objections were filed to that report and in the first instance the learned Munsif ordered that that issue will be decided first before the final case is decided. But later on, on 3-2-1947 the learned Munsif was of opinion that the question of jurisdiction would not he a pure question of law but would also involve the decision on the merits of the suit itself and, therefore, he adjourned the decision of th...
Hori Lal Vs. Vishwanath Bhately and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All777; 1957CriLJ1360
ORDER1. This is a complainant's revision against the order of the lower appellate Court acquitting the opposite party Vishwanath Bhately of the charge under Section 500, I. P. C., of which he had been convicted by the trial Court and sentenced to 6 months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 and in default to one month's further simple imprionment.2. It appears that the applicant Hori Lal and Vishwanath Bhately were rival candidates for the Chairmanship of the Town Area Committee of Ek-dil in the district of Etawah. Vishwanath Bhately filed the following objection to the nomination of the applicant: -1. Sri Hori Lal Ji par dafa ek sau sath kaim raha hae. 2. Unki umar 55 baras se adhik hae jabki sar-kar hata deti hae. 3. We sharabi hain jo ek naitik apradh hae. 4. Sharab aur zaeefi ke karan jab kabhi unmadi jaisi awastha ho jati hae jo pagalpan ka pratham cha-ran hae. 5. Unki cbaritrak bhirisht ke sambandh men sara qasba afwahon se achhadit hae. Hori Lal filed a complaint under Se...
Lala Babu Lal Vs. Pt. Jugla Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All32
ORDERRandhir Singh, J. 1. This is an application in revision against a decree passed by the Court of Small Causes in respect of the rent of an Ahata for the period from the 1st September, 1949 to the 31st March, 1950.2. It appears that a suit for recovery of rent for a period prior to 1st September, 1949 had been decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant Babu Lal instituted a suit for the setting aside of that decree on the ground of fraud but that suit was dismissed and an appeal was instituted against that order of the dismissal of the suit. The appeal cams up for hearing before the Civil Judge before whom a Small Cause Court case for the recovery of rent for a later period and against the judgment of which the present application for revision has been filed, was also pending.Defendant Babu Lal contested the suit mainly on the ground that he was not a tenant of the plaintiff & that he was not liable for payment of rent. Evidence was led by the parties and the evidence produce...
Niaz Mohd. Khan Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All29; 1958CriLJ7
Randhir Singh, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Press (Objectionable Matters) Act 1951 against an order of the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, demanding a security of RS. 500/- from the appellant under Sections 4 & 7 of the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act. It appears that a newspaper styled as 'Millat Jadid' was printed at a press of which the appellant was the keeper. In the issue of the newspaper Millat Jadid dated the 13th August, 1954, certain matter with the heading 'Pant Sarkar ki Rajdhani ...... Janaza Nikal Gaya' was published.The District Magistrate then filed a complaint to the Sessions Judge asking for the demand of security from the appellant along with two others who were connected with the press and the publication of the newspaper on the ground that the matter mentioned above was 'Objectionable matter' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act. The learned Sessions Judge found that the articles which were alleged by the complainant t...
State Vs. Fateh Bahadur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All1; 1958CriLJ1
Roy, J. 1. This is an appeal on behalf of the State against an order of acquittal of the respondents who are five in number. Fateh Bahadur respondent No. 1 is a boy aged twelve years. He is an orphan and he lives with his uncle Rashik Behari Lal respondent No. 4, Sooraj Prakash respondent No. 3 belongs to the same caste as these two respondents & he is an amateur Homoepathic practitioner in village Manauna where the respondents reside. Respondent No. 2 is Umrai Gir and respondent No. 5 is Smt. Ram Murti the wife of Umrai Gir. 2. Fateh Bahadur was charged for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 328, I. P. C., in that on the 16th of April, 1953, at about 11 a.m. he committed the murder of Sudarshan Puri by administering a poisonous pera to him knowing that it contained arsenic poison as a result of which Sudarshan Puri died on the same date by about 7 in the evening. The other four respondents were charged for the abetment of the offences under Sections 302 and 328, I. P. C. These...
Har Prasad and ors. Vs. Lala Sita Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All36
V.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is a first appeal from an order, remanding the case to the trial Court.2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiffs from using and taking sugarcane juice from the tenants. In the alternative it was prayed that account be taken, which was for 1949-60, from the defendants and a decree be passed for the amount in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' case was that there was a partnership between the plaintiffs and the defendants for the purpose of purchasing sugarcane Juice for making gur from it. The case of the plaintiffs further was that the defendants alone had been collecting the juice and have not paid the profits. The defence, inter alia, was that since the partnership was not registered, the suit was barred by Section 69, Partnership Act.3. During the pendency of the suit several dates had been fixed. The suit was filed on 28-1-50 and 23-3-50 was fixed for filing written statement. The writ...
Nazim Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All829; 1957CriLJ1384
ORDERChowdhry, J.1. This is an application in revisionby one Nazim who was convicted by a First Class Magistrate of Sultanpur under Section 42 of the Pure Food Act for contravention of the provisions of Section 30 of that Act, Section 30 lays down as follows:'A person who wilfully obstructs any person acting in the performance of any duty under this Act or any rule, by-law, order or warrant made or issued thereunder, shall be guilty of an offence.'2. In the, present case the charge against the applicant was that at about 6 a. m., on the 24-4-1953 he had obstructed a Food Inspector in the performance of his duty in that when the Food Inspector saw him pass by with some milk-In a bucket and asked him to stop he ran, and . when the Inspector sent his peon after him he threw away the milk, two or two and half seers in weight.Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the Act contains the duties and power of the Food Inspectors. The provision of that rule relevant to the present case is contained in ...
Bhola Kunwar and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All831; 1957CriLJ1386
ORDERChowdhry, J.1. This is an application in revision by Bhola Kunwar and twenty-one others against an interlocutory order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Salem pur at Deoria in proceedings under Section 107, Or. P. C.2. It appears 'that in the course of the proceedings an application was filed on behalf of the present applicants before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the proceedings be dropped inasmuch as the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make the enquiry. That application was rejected by the Magistrate, and the applicants' revision to the Sessions Judge was also rejected. The applicants have, therefore, come up in revision to this Court.3. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant was this, Under Sub-section (2) of Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it stood before the amendment by the Act Criminal Procedure Amendment) Act 26 of 1955, proceedings under the section could not be taken by a Magistrate other than the District Magistrate unless b...
FakruddIn and anr. Vs. Iqbal Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All680
Desai, J. 1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., for revision of an order passed by the Civil Judge, Agra, permitting the opposite parties plaintiffs to sue as paupers. The suit instituted by the opposite parties against the applicants is one for declaration of title, possession of immoveable property and damages and is valued at Rs. 6,000 on which court-fee of Rs. 835 is payable. The learned Civil Judge after an enquiry found that the opposite parties were not possessed of sufficient means to enable them to pay the court-fee.2. The first contention of Sri Gopal Behari was that the learned Civil Judge was in error in permitting the opposite parties to sue as paupers merely on the finding that they were not possessed of sufficient means and that he should not have permitted them unless he found that they were not entitled to property worth Rs. 100. This contention is based upon the explanation 'A person is a 'pauper' when he is not possessed of sufficient means to enab...
Shrimati Bhuwaneshwari Devi Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1957
Reported in: [1957]8STC506(All)
Chaturvedi, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing an order of the Additional District Magistrate of Kanpur dated 17th October, 1955, dismissing certain objections filed by the petitioner before him.2. There is a firm named Sarveshwar Bhagwati Pd. with its office at Generalganj, Kanpur. Sri Sarveshwar, husband of the petitioner, is one of the partners of the firm. Sales tax is due from the firm for the years 1952-53 and 1953-54, which the firm has omitted to pay. The Sales Tax Officer sent a certificate to the Collector on the l6th of July, 1955, for the recovery of the amounts, as arrears of land revenue. The Collector attached a house situate in Mohalla Gandhi Nagar in proceedings for recovery of the amount of sales tax. The petitioner filed an objection saying that she was the owner of the house, having purchased it by a sale deed dated the 15th of August, 1945, and that it was her own personal property. She...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »