Allahabad Court September 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.
Dulla and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All198; 1958CriLJ316
ORDERJames, J.1. This is a case under the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1956) and raises several issues of public importance. The facts as found by the Courts below are as follows. On 14th May 1950 on receipt of information that a cow was being slaughtered in the house of one Phulu oi village Saidpur, police circle Wazirganj in the district of Budaun, a party of police led by Sub-Inspector Ranvir Singh raided Phullu's house at 12 noon. In the inner courtyard Phullu, Alladin and Munshi s/o Wazir were found cutting the carcase of a cow into big pieces while Babu, Dula and Munshi s/o Karim were dividing the large pieces into small ones. Phullu was arrested on the spot but the five others made good their escape. Medical evidence established that the animal had been killed between 4.30 and 6.30 a.m. that day and that it had not been suffering from any disease. The six men were tried before a Magistrate for an offence under Section 8 (1) of the Prevention of Cow S...
Nathu Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All467; 1958CriLJ821
Tandon, J. 1. One Ram Ghulam was resident of village Roshanpur Tikari, P.S. Khaga, in district Fateh-pur. He had three sons, Ram Narain, Mata Prasad and Mata Badal. Ram Narain the eldest is employed in cultivation in village Roshanpur. Mata Prasad is employed at Kanpur in the power house. The third son was a student in D. A. V. College at Kanpur in 1954. Ram Ghulam and Ram Narain along with other members of their family resided at Roshanpur. Besides the residential house he possessed a bagar also, two houses away in the same village, where his cattle etc. used to be tied. It was alleged that Ram Ghulam used to sleep during night in this bagar.As usual he went to sleep there on the night between 13th and 14th of August 1954 but did not return to his house in the morning of 14th August. Ram Narain went out in search of him but could not trace him out. Next it is said that the search by Ram Narain lasted for three days whereafter he went to Kanpur thinking that Ram Ghulam might have gone ...
Kashi Bux Singh Vs. Sub-divisional Officer, Amethi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All341
ORDERG. Mehrotra, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer dismissing the petition filed by the applicant under Section 12-C of the Panchayat Raj Act challenging the election of the opposite party No. 3 as the Fradhan be quashed. 2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner and the opposite party No. 3 were the two rival candidates for the office of Pradhan. Both of them received 109 votes each. One vote was received in favour of the petitioner through post. The Returning Officer rightly rejected that vote inasmuch as there was nothing in the rules which authorised the casting of the vote by post. The result was that both the candidates obtained 109 votes. The Presiding Officer acting on the instructions from the Assistant Returning Officer drew the lot and as a result the lot was drawn in favour of the present petitioner. It is asserted by the petitioner that the Presiding Officer then announced that...
Girja Shankar Shukla Vs. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Luckno ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1957
Reported in: AIR1959All624
ORDERRandhir Singh, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari against the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Lucknow Division, the Postmaster, G. P. O., Lucknow, and the Director of Postal Services, U. P. Lucknow for the quashing of three orders, one dated 30-4-1955, another dated 12-5-1955 and the third dated 19-10-1955, passed In appeal by the Director of Postal Services. 2. It appears that the applicant made a representation to the Minister of Communications against the order dated 19-10-1955 dismissing the appeal of the applicant against the order of dismissal passed by opposite party No. 1. The President of India, however, rejected the representation and the applicant was informed of the decision of the President, by opposite party No. 3, the Director of Postal Services. He has not impleaded the Union of India as a party to this petition but has asked for the quashing of the orders mentioned above on the ground that, the r...
Firm Bulchand Chandi Ram and Co. Vs. L. Onkar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All166
Mukerji, J. 1. This is a first appeal from order which raises an interesting question of law -- a question which has apparently not been decided in this Court -- at any rate no reported decision of this Court was cited before me by counsel appearing for the parties on either side. 2. A suit was instituted on 7th October 1946 by Lala Onkarnath as a proprietor of Firm Onkar Nath Raj Narain against Firm Bul Chand Chandi Ram and Company, through Bul Chand, one of the proprietors of the Firm Bul Chand Chandi Ram and Co., Timber Merchants situate at Hyderabad, Sind, for the recovery of Rs. 1500/- with costs. The suit was filed in the Court, of Munsii of Agra and was numbered as 894 of 1946. An amendment to the relief was subsequently sought and the relief was amended to contain an alternative prayer to the effect that in case a decree for a specific sum was not awardable then a decree for rendition of true and correct accounts be made against the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. Among...
Chandra Pal Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All311
M.C. Desai, J. 1. The applicant was ejected when he was a minor in 1953 under the U. P. Tenancy Act. On attaining majority he filed a suit giving rise to this writ petition for possession under Section 183 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. On that date the suit was time barred. He claimed that the period of limitation for the suit began on the date on which he attained majority. In other words, he sought the benefit of Section 6 of the Limitation Act. The Board of Revenue held that Section 6 did not apply in a proceeding governed by the U. P. Tenancy Act and that consequently the period of limitation could not be computed from the date on which he attained majority. Sri J. N. Chatterji contends that this view of the Board of Revenue was wrong. 2. The U. P. Tenancy Act is a special or local law laying down its own periods of limitation for the suits brought under it. Under Section 29 of the Limitation Act, Section 3 of the Limitation Act would apply to any suit under the U. P. Tenancy Act, but ...
Sankatha Pandey Vs. Brij Mohan Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All371
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This is a special appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge dismissing a second appeal.2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows. Dalthamnmn Pandey and Dalganjan. Pandey were brothers. Dalganjan Pandey died in 1898. leaving his widow Srimati Uttama and his daughter Srimati Gaura. Dalthamman pandey died in 1935. On 11-2-1931 he dedicated certain properties of his to some deities. He executed a will on 23-7-1921 and another will on 2-11-1923.By his first will he appointed Srimati Uttama, Srimati Gaura and Srimati Gaura's father-in-law Sital Pandey as his executors. By his second will he - appointed Srimati Uttama, Srimati Gaura and Jagmohan Pandey, one of the three sons then alive of Sital Pandey, as his executors. Both Sital Pandey and Jagmohan, Pandey died within the lifetime of Dalthamman Pandey, the former dying in 1934 and the latter in 1924.3. It was provided in the first will of 1921 that after the death of Srimati Uttama and Srimati Gaura, t...
Ram Swarup Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All119; 1958CriLJ134
ORDER1. This Revision involves the extent and implications of the fundamental right against self-incrimination embodied in Clause (3) of Article 20 of our Constitution in the words : ''No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself'. Since I propose referring the case to a Division Bench I shall give but a brief account of the facts of the case and the state of the law applicable. 2. The facts are these. The applicant, who is an official of the Post Office of Pilibhit, was sent up for trial for the offence of embezzlement under Section 409, I. P. C., and the authorship of certain writings was one of the facts at issue. A specimen of his writing or signature was taken by the Committing Magistrate, but for some undisclosed reason was not sent for expert examination. At the trial before the Sessions Judge the Government counsel applied for sending the specimen to an expert, to which the applicant strongly objected, After hearing the parties the learned...
Tribeni Kurmi Vs. M. Ram Dulari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All168
Gurtu, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the defendant in the suit. 2. The plaintiffs came upon the allegation that the defendant had removed moonj from his property. They claimed damages. The plaintiffs' allegation was that the defendant was sarkash, that he had unlawfully removed the said moonj, that a report in respect of such removal had been made at the Thana, and that the defendant had absolutely no right in the moonj. The suit was defended and I am informed the defendant asserted his own right to the moonj and stated that he had cut the moonj from his own land. The amount claimed by way of damages was Rs. 15/- only. 3. An issue was raised in regard to the jurisdiction of the Court before the learned Mun-sif. It was urged (a) that the small cause Court had jurisdiction, (b) that the Panchayati Ada-lat had jurisdiction. The learned Munsif. held that though the Panchayati Adalat had jurisdiction, inasmuch as there was no Panchayati Adulat existing on the date when the plaint was fil...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Bhagat Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All342
B. Mukerji, J. 1. This is an appeal against anorder of remand made by the 1st Civil Judge of Saharanpur in a suit that was filed by the plaintiff, Bhagat Bam, who is the respondent in the appeal before me, for the recovery of Rs. 1,700/-as arrears of allowances due to him from the Railway Administration. The plaintiff Bhagat Ram was a III Grade Guard in the E, P. Railway at Saharanpur.He was suspected of having committed an offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and was, therefore, prosecuted for a charge punishable under that section. On his prosecution he was suspended by the Railway Administration. Bhagat Ram was later acquitted by the court which tried him on the 20th of May, 1949, but he was nevertheless under suspension from the 6th of July, 1948, to the 4th of August, 1949.The plaintiff was reinstated, apparently, on the 4th of August, 1949, and thereafter the question arose about paying him his salary and allowances to which he would be entitled under the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »