Allahabad Court January 1958 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.
Jwali and ors. Vs. Babu Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All564; (1958)IILLJ18All
O.H. Mootham, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice S. N. Sahai dated the 19th September, 1957.2. On the 9th January, 1954, the appellants were awarded Rs. 3,500 compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act as compensation for the death of one Chhotey who was the son of the first and third appellants and the husband of the second appellant. The compensation awarded was directed to be paid by the respondents who were the employers of Chhotey at the time of his death. From that order the respondents filed an appeal to this Court under Section 30 of the Act. The learned Judge held that the respondents had not been served with notice of the proceedings before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and that the award of compensation was accordingly made without the respondents being afforded an opportunity of contesting the application. The learned Judge accordingly set aside the order of the Commissioner and remanded the case for further hearing.3. The appellants ...
Om Prakash and anr. Vs. Moti Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All409
FACTS This was an application in revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The order sought to be revised was passed by the Small Cause Court Judge on 27-3-52 in a suit instituted in his Court on 16-10-51. The application was filed in the High Court on 14-7-52. The High Court admitted the application on 15-12-52, called for the record and ordered notice to issue to the other party.At the hearing of the application by Hon'ble Srivastava J., a preliminary objection was raised and it was pointed out that Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act having been amended by U. P. Act 17 of 1957, the High Court was no longer possessed of any power to entertain the application in revision or to dispose it of.In support of this contention reliance was placed on a decision of a Single Judge of the High Court dated 18th November 1957 in Damodar Das v. Raghubir Saran, Civil Revn. No. 789 of 1950 (All). Reference was made in that decision to an earlier decisio...
Dwarka Prasad Vs. Municipal Board, Meerut
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All561
R.N. Gurtu, J.1. This is a civil revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act brought by a judgment-debtor. The opposite party to this revision had obtained a money decree against the judgment-debtor in 1945. In or about the year 1951 he sought to execute this decree by attachment and sale of a tractor belonging to the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor sought protection from, attachment of the tractor in question under Clause (b) of the Proviso to Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Small Cause Court refused to give him the protection and held that the tractor was not exempt from attachment. The Small Cause Court also held that the judgment-debtor was not an agriculturist. It rejected the objection of the judgment-debtor with costs.2. Hence the judgment-debtor has come up by way of civil revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. Before we quote Sub-clause (b) of the proviso to Section 60(1) of the Code we might state that it is admitted that t...
Sm. Shanti Devi Vs. Shri Ram Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All569
R.N. Gurtu, J. 1. One Sri Ramlal held a decree against Sri Brij Bhushan Saran. Mittal, The decree-holder put his decree into execution after the death of the said Brij Bhushan Saran Mittal and sought to attach the money due under a life insurance policy which Brij Bhushan Saran Mittal had taken out on 28-2-1944 from the Indian Mercantile Insurance Company Ltd. 2. Brij Bhushan Saran Mittal's wife, Smt. Shanti Devi, made an application for the release of the insurance policy money which had been attached, upon the ground that she had been nominated by Brij Bhushan Saran Mittal to receive the policy money in the event of the death of Brij Bhushan Saran Mittal, the insured. The objection of Smt. Shanti Devi was dismissed by the learned executing court which held that Section 6(1) of the Married Women's Property Act (Act III of 1874) did not apply to Hindus. It also held that Section 39 of the Insurance Act was clear that where the insured had nominated his wife to receive payment of the mo...
Budh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All607; (1958)IILLJ27All
O.H. Mootham, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from an order of a learned Judge dated the 20th October, 1955, dismissing, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant was enlisted in the Police Force in the year 1944. In 1949 he was promoted as a Sub-Inspector, and in 1952 he was posted as a Sub-Inspector of Police at police station Panwari in the district of Hamirpur. On the 2nd March, 1953 he went with three armed constables to the neighbouring village of Nekpura, and while in or near that village he and the constables accompanying him came into conflict with a party of villagers as a result of which the police party received a number of injuries and six of the villagers were shot dead. Following upon this incident proceedings were taken against the appellant under Section 7 of the Police Act. On the 4th August, 1953, he was charged under that Section with being remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty or unfit for the same in that he had -- (we summarise the part...
Taashuq HussaIn Vs. State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All568; 1959CriLJ1043
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1 . In a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. the Magistrate not being able to decide which party was in possession referred the dispute under Section 146(1) to a civil Court and the latter gave a finding to the effect that the opposite party was in possession. On receipt of the finding the Magistrate passed the order under revision stating that he had seen the order of the civil Court and directing that the property be released in favour of the opposite party. The applicant being aggrieved by the order filed an application in revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge, who dismissed it remarking that under Section 146 (1-D) the finding of the civil Court on the reference could not be appealed against or revised or reviewed and that the learned Magistrate was bound to dispose of the case in accordance with the finding.2. It was contended before me that in a revision application against an order of the Magistrate passed under Section 146 (1-B) the finding of the c...
Mahadeo and ors. Vs. the Sub-divisional Officer, Kunda and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All43
ORDERV.G. Oak, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is directed against a decision of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Kunda, district Partabgarh, dismissing an election petition. Maha-deo and nine others are the petitioners in this petition. Sumer Chand is the principal opposite party. Faruq, petitioner No. 8, has filed an affidavit in support of the writ petition. 2. According to Faruq's affidavit, election was held for the office of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Nen-dura. There were two candidates for the Office. They are Sumer Chand and Sajjad Husain, who are opposite parties 2 and 3 in the writ petition. Sumer Chand was declared elected as Pradhan. 3. The petitioners filed an election petition challenging Sumer Chand's election. The main ground in the election petition was that, Sumer Chand's age was below 30 years. There were also other irregularities alleged by the petitioners. The election petition was heard by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer Kunda, dist...
Bhuvanesh Bhushan Sharma Vs. Election Tribunal, Farrukhabad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All587
V. Bhargava, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash two orders dated 13th September, 1957, and 21st September, 1957, passed by the Election Tribunal, Farrukhabad. The petitioner and opposite party No. 2 were both candidates for election as members of the U. P. Legislative Assembly from the Single Member Etawah Constituency (No. 150), in the last general elections held in the beginning of the year 1957. On 10th March, 1957, the petitioner was declared as the duly elected candidate.On 23rd April, 1957, opposite party no. 2 presented an election petition before the Election Commission accompanied by a treasury receipt in respect of a deposit of Rs. 1,000/- as security for costs of the election petition. On 12th May, 1957, the Election Commission passed the order under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act referring this petition for trial to the Election Tribunal at Parrukhabad. The petition ...
Shiv NaraIn Vs. Deputy Director (C), Mathura and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All487
Srivastava, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against an order of Mr. Justice Chaturvedi by which he dismissed a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. One Govind Ram had several holdings in village Nagla Parsu, Mazra Mouza Gutehra, Pargana Saidabad District Mathura. He owned some of these holdings exclusively. In others he only owned a share. On his death the appellant claimed to be entitled to the holdings on the ground that he had been adopted by Govind Ram.The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 contested the appellant's claim, denied his adoption and claimed to by the heirs of Govind Ram under the Hindu Law. The appellant, however, succeeded in having mutation ordered in his own favour. Consolidation proceedings then started in the village and in accordance with Section 11 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act a statement of the plots of tenure holders was prepared and published. In that statement the appellant was shown as tenure holder of the plots which...
Haji Abdul Shakoor Vs. the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All440
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of an order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer Kanpur (respondent No. 1) dated 10-9-1956, declaring a godown belonging to the petitioner as vacant for allotment, and for a writ in the nature of mandmus commanding the aforesaid Officer to withdraw the impugned order and not to continue the allotment proceedings in respect of the house.2. The petitioner, Abdul Shakoor is the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute known as No. 95/32 Pechbagh Kanpur. The respondent No. 1 is the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur and the respondent No. 2 the District Magistrate of Kanpur. The respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6 are persons who made applications for allotment of the house and are rival claimants.3. The relevant facts, as stated in the petitioner's affidavit, are these. The property in dispute is a godown which is a part of the premises No. 95/32 Pechbagh Kanpur mentioned above. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »