Allahabad Court November 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.
Kallu Mal and ors. Vs. Mohammad Yusuf and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All391
B.N. Nigam, J.1. This is a reference by one of us of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. The facts in brief are that Kallu Mal and three others are tenants of a shop situated in Bazar Husainganj, Lucknow, since 1910. In June 1953 opposite-party No. 1 who is the owner of the shop made an application to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lucknow for permission under Section 3 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act to file a suit for ejectment. That application was rejected. The) second application made on 9-6-1956 was also rejected. The opposite-party No. 1, however, persisted and filed a fresh application on 4-9-1956.This application was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 11-12-1956. He allowed the petitioners one month's time to vacate half the portion of the shop in their pos-session. If they did so there was to be no permission for ejectment. If, on the other hand, they failed to vacate half portion of the shop the opposite-part...
Puran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All489
ORDERJ.K. Tandon, J. 1. The petitioner held a stage carriage permit No. 15 on Garh Delhi route. The vehicle covered by this permit was No. USL 2855. It appeared that the vehicle had become old, consequently on 10-9-1955 the petitioner applied to the Regional Transport Authority concerned for replace-ment of the vehicle. His case is that in response to the requisition sent by the Regional Transport Authority he was driving his vehicle No. USL 2855 to the office of the Regional Transport Authority for its inspection on 3-11-1955.The vehicle was, further according to him,empty at the moment but it was checked by the Enforcement Squad and as there was no fitnesscertificate then valid, his case was reported to the Regional Transport Authority which purporting to act under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, suspended the permit for a period of three months. The fitness certificate originally held in respect of this vehicle had expired on 19-10-1955.On 3-11-1955 when the vehicle was ...
Taini Mal Bhopat Ram Vs. State Transport Authority, Lucknow and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All495
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 o the Constitution impugning the legality of certain proceedings initiated by the State Transport Authority, Lucknow, against the petitioner by means of a notice calling upon him to show cause why a permit granted to him by the Regional Transport Authority, Kumaun Region, should not be revised by the State Transport Authority. The facts, as statedin the affidavit supporting the petition, are these. The petitioner firm was sanctioned a private carrier's permit by the Regional Transport Authority, Ku-maun Region by a resolution dated 16-8-1956, In pursuance of this resolution a private carrier's permit was actually issued to the petitioner on 15-10-1956. It appears that the petitioner continued in uninterrupted enjoyment of the rights and privileges under this permit for more than a year. But on 10-2-1958, he received a notice referred to above. The date of the notice is 6-2-1958. The petitioner sent a reply to the notice denyi...
Dr. Prem Nath Sharma Vs. Vice-chancellor, Lucknow University and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All618
R.N. Gurtu, J.1. The petitioner, Dr. Prom Nath Sharma, according to the facts sworn to or admitted before us, was recruited as a lecturer in the Lucknow University in 1934. Ho was promoted to be a reader in 1946. He became an officiating professor in the department of Physics on 18-7-1950, when Dr. D. D. Deodar, the permanent professor in the department of Physics retired. Applications were thereafter invited for the post of professor of Physics. The petitioner and others made applications. Eventually on 8-5-1952, the petitioner was confirmed as professor. He thus came to occupy the professorship and headship of the department of Physics in a substantive capacity on and from that date.2. Dr. Das Gupta, according to the facts sworn or admitted, was by a resolution of the Executive Council of the University dated 18-3-1949, appointed as professor of Botany from the date he rejoined his duties in the University. Between 18-3-1949 and 15-12-1950, Dr. Das Gupta was on leave without pay. He ...
City Board, Mussoorie Vs. Sri Kishan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All413; 1959CriLJ800
ORDERM.C. Desai, J. 1. The Applicant City Board of Mussorrie prosecuted the opposite party Kishan Lal for the offence of Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated bee honey. It has been found as a matter of fact that on 26-9-1956 the opposite party, who is a dealer in bee honey sold three sealed bottles each bearing the label 'Pure Bee Honey' to a Food Inspector, and on analysis the honey in each bottle was found to be adulterated. The opposite-party pleading not guilty contended that he had purchased the bottles from the Himachal Drugs Coy. and sold them in the same condition.He produced a voucher given to him by the Himachal Drugs Coy, in which the article has been described as bee honey. The trial Court held that the label 'Pure Bee Honey' put on each bottle by the vendors amounted to a warranty and that the opposite-party having sold the bottles in the same condition in which he had purchased them from the vendors was not guilty and acquitted him...
State Vs. Madanlal Jaggi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All504; 1959CriLJ934
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. The question raised in this reference is about the rights of the prosecution and the accused in respect of disguising the face of prominent marks of identification on it. The opposite party, Madan Lal Juggi, is being prosecuted along With others for the offences of Sections 302 and 120B, I. P. C., before a Magistrate. He has two prominent marks, one a scar on the left cheek and the other a scar in the middle of neck, and the precise question is whether he is entitled to cover the marks or to adopt any disguise when he appears in court during the trial. He is on bail.Under the law he is only required to be present at the trial; there is no law which prescribes the dress to be worn by him or prevents his putting on any dress he likes or adopting a disguise or covering his face or changing it or not taking steps to prevent its natural change (by growth of hair etc.) At the same time a prosecution witness has a right to see his face as much as it is necessary for (ide...
Laxmi NaraIn Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All556; 1959CriLJ1039
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate, Varnasi, recommending that an order issued by a first Class Magistrate on 22-12-1955 directing a process to be issued for recovery of arrears of maintenance allowance under Section 488 (3), Criminal P. C., be set aside. The wife, who is the opposite party before me and is absent, obtained a maintenance order in her favour on 15-6-1955, and on 22-12-1955 applied for enforcement of the order alleging non-payment of any allowance.On the same date the Magistrate ordered a process to be issued; he did not issue any notice to the husband before ordering a process to be issued and did not make any enquiry whether the allowance was really in arrear and whether the husband's refusal or failure to pay the allowance was for sufficient cause or not. The learned Additional District Magistrate recommends the quashing of the order on the ground that it could not be passed without an opportunity being given to the husband...
Gopal Krishna Goswami Vs. Bissey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All671; 1959CriLJ1257
ORDERM.C. Desai, J. 1. In proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. the Magistrate being unable to decide which part was in possession kept the property under attachment under Section 146 Cr. P. C. Subsequently the applicant filed a suit for declaration of his title and it was decreed by the trial court. Thereupon the Magistrate released the property in his favour. The decree of the court was, however, set aside on appeal. The appellate court refrained from giving any decision in respect of title in favour of either of the parties; it simply dismissed the applicant's suit for declaration without holding that the title vested in the opposite parties.On this the Magistrate re-attached the property, being of the view that neither party had obtained a decision in respect of title in Ins favour and that the position was the same as when the order under Section 146 was passed. This reference has been made by the Sessions Judge, who recommends that the order be quashed because the Magistrate ha...
Bachai Singh Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All693; 1959CriLJ1261
ORDERM.C. Desai, J. 1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur recommending that the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Section 228 I. P. C., be quashed. On 25-3-1957 the applicant, who is the Secretary of the Revolutionary Socialist Party, Ghazipur, accompanied by about 500 persons staged a demonstration in the Collectorate of Ghazipur by continuously shouting slogans with loud voice in front of the court room of Sri U. N. Pande, Judicial Officer, when he was trying a case. The Judicial Officer was much disturbed by the shouts and instructed an officialof the court to ask the mob to observe silence. In spite of the official's remonstration the applicant and his companions continued shouting loudly and causing interference with the trial of the case by the Judicial Officer. Thereupon a report was made to the police; the police arrived there and arrested the applicant. The police investigated the case and submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant, and f...
Union of India (Uoi), Rly. Department, New Delhi Vs. Kailash Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All434; (1959)IILLJ161All
V.D. Bhargava, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the defendant Union of India, in suit brought by Kailash Chandra respondent who was a clerk formerly in the old Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway Accounts Office having been employed on 3-5-1912. After the amalgamation of the O. and R. Raillway with the East Indian Railway, he was confirmed sometime in 1913. In 1948 he was working as a sub-head in the Divisional Accounts Office of the East Indian Railway at Lucknow and according to the plaintiff he was com-pulsorily made to retire on 30-6-1948 after attaining the age of 55. 2. The contention of the plaintiff is that according to Fundamental Rule 56 equivalent to Rule 2046 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, he should not have been made to retire compulsorily at the age of 55 but he was entitled to remain in service till the age of 60 and if he was made to retire compulsorily that order amounted to an order of removal and was passed in breach of the provisions of Section 240, Clause (3) of...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »