Allahabad Court October 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.
Shridhar Misra and ors. Vs. Jaichandra Vidyalankar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All598
V.G. Oak, J.1. These three connected suits relate to the affairs of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. The principal question raised in thesesuits is whether a certain constitution framed on behalf of this institution is valid.2. There is not much dispute about facts. The admitted facts are these. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (hereinafter referred to as the Sammelan) was established some years ago to popularise Hindi language and to develop Hindi literature. The Sammelan has been doing valuable work in the cause of Hindi language and literature during the last few years. The Sammelan has been registered under the Societies Registration Act (No. XXI of 1860). Certain rules were prepared in the year 1946 for the management of the Sammelan.Those rules were in force for two or three years. The Constitution of India recognized Hindi as the official language of the country. It was felt by a large section of the Sammelan that, it was necessary to introduce fundamental changes in the object, program...
Smt. Prem Vs. District Magistrate, Meerut and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All206; 1959CriLJ286
B. Mukerji, J. 1. This is a petition by Srimati Prem under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.2. According to the averments of the petitioner, she is a young woman of 24 years carrying on the profession of dancing and singing and that she carried on this profession in her house situate in Kabari Bazar in the city of Meerut. On 20-7-1958, the petitioner states, she was taken into custody by the police of Meerut and thereafter sent to a women's protective home at Rajpur in the town of Dehra Dun. The petitioner further alleges that the police purported to act under Sections 16 and 17 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act No. 104 of 1956) which was passed by the Central Government and which came into force on 1-5-1958. The petitioner has challenged that she is amenable to be dealt with under the aforementioned Act because, according to her, she is aged 24 years and as such she could not be dealt w...
Ganga Bux Singh Vs. Sukhdin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All141; 1959CriLJ261
B.N. Nigam, J.1. On 8-8-1955, Sukh Din made an application under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Salon, district Rae Bareli claiming to be Sirdar of plot No. 369/2 in village Ahal, Police station Salon as heir of his deceased brother; Bhagwan Din. He alleged that Ganga Baksh Singh, the opposite party, who was previously the zamindar, had taken forcible possession of the plot on or about 24-7-1955.2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate asked the Police for a report by 23-8-1955 as to the existence of an apprehension of a breach of the peace. The police report was not received on that date and was awaited for till 12-9-1955. Actually the police submitted a report on 31-8-1955 and this was received by the Magistrate on 8-9-1955 but for some unexplained reason, it was not put up before the learned Magistrate on 12-9-1955 and no preliminary order under Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was passed till 14-10-1955. The land in question was at...
Hem Lata Vs. Jamboo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All382
D.N. Roy, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against an order dated the 25th of April, 1958 passed by the learned civil Judge of Saharanpur. It arises under the following circumstances.2. A suit was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of her ornaments or in lieu thereof for the recovery of a certain sum of money. The suit was resisted by the defendants and certain preliminary issues were raised. The suit was fixed for the 16th of November, 1957 for the hearing of the preliminary issues relating to the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit and the plea of limitation.On that date, the plaintiff's counsel Sri Hukum Chand Jain as well as the plaintiff's Mukhtar-Khas Sri Tirlok Chand offered to be bound by the statement of Sri Jamboo Prasad defendant No. 1 provided that the statement was made on the special oath of Sri Mahabir Ji Swami. Sri Jamboo Prasad agreed to give his statement on that special oath. The offer was accepted by the counsel of the defendants.The statement of ...
Smt. Rani Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All525
ORDERS.S. Dhawan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of an order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation Bareilly rejecting the petitioner's revision against an order of the Settlement Officer Bareilly. The case of the petitioner is that she and certain other persons were co-tenure holders with equal shares in a joint holding in village Churai Dalpatpur in Bareilly. The petitioner had her holding partitioned under Section 10-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. She states that after the partition her plots were equal in quality to those of the other members of her family who are respondents 4 to 6 in this petition. The plots were also situate in the same area. In the consolidation proceedings a statement of proposals was drawn up.Under it the respondent Baldeo Prasad was given all the plots of his choice while the petitioner's claim of plots of her choice was ignored. She was allotted plots of inferior quality and given two c...
Raghavendra Kripal and ors. Vs. the Municipal Board, Hapur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All192
B.R. James, J.1. The Municipal Board of Hapur decided to impose water-tax, and after its proposals and rules had been finalised they were sanctioned by the Commissioner (who is the prescribed authority for the purpose) and a Notification was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 11-12-1956 imposing the tax in question from 1-4-1957. The petitioners, who are fifteen house owners of Hapur, received notices from the Board for payment of the water-tax assessed in respect of their houses.They have come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and pray for the issue of a writ or order preventing the Board from realising the tax, and their principal contention is that the tax is illegal inasmuch as it has been imposed in contravention of various provisions of the Municipalities Act 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. When a Board desires to impose a tax it is lequired to follow a procedure which is found laid down in Sections 131 to 135 of the Act. It is a somewhat compl...
Bir Bhadra Pratap Singh Vs. D.M. Azamgarh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All384; 1959CriLJ685
B. Mukerji, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ or order.2. The circumstances in which this petition arose were these: The petitioner alleged that he was an Advocate of this Court practising at Azamgarh and that the petitioner did some work of a newspaper correspondent in an honorary capacity being a representative of a Hindi Daily named 'Bharat' which is simultaneously published from Banaras and Allahabad.3. That on the 2nd of September. 1958, the petitioner had gpne to the courts situate in the compound of the Collectorate, Azamgarh, in connection with his professional work when a procession of the Communist Party reached the compound of the Collectorate shouting slogans and that hearing these slogans the petitioner went to that place: that soon after a lathi charge was made by the police on the processionists who had at the time of the lathicharge collected in front of the Court of the Distri...
District Labour Federation Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-1958
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ44All
V.G. Oak, J.1. The principal question raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether a certain labour federation is entitled to represent workmen in a number of pending industrial disputes. The District Labour Federation, Pilibhit, is the petitioner. Sri Bachan Singh who is the Vice-President of the District Labour Federation, Pilibhit, has filed an affidavit on behalf of the petitioner.2. According to the affidavit there exists at Pilibhit a labour union known as Pilibhit Mill Labour Union. It has been registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926. The District Labour Federation, Pilibhit, has also been registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926. There have been a number of industrial disputes between L.H. Sugar Factories and Oil Mills (Private), Ltd., Pilibhit, and their workmen. Annexures B and C to the affidavit are two lists of such disputes. Cases mentioned in annexure B are pending with Government for orders. Cases mentioned in annexure C a...
Tursi and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All786; 1959CriLJ1392
ORDERM.C. Desai, J. 1. The applicants filed an appeal from the conviction by the trial Court in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Bareilly. Though the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a copy of the judgment appealed from, it was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge and the appeal was registered and was then transferred to the Civil and Sessions Judge, Pilibhit for further proceedings, The learned Sessions Judge also accepted the applicants' application for suspension of the execution of the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them and released them on bail. In the Court of the learned Civil and Sessions Judge the applicants applied for permission to file a copy of the judgment but the application was dismissed by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge on the ground that by that date the period of limitation for filing an appeal had expired. Then the learned Civil and Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal itself on the ground that the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›