Allahabad Court December 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.
In Re: Sri H.P. Chaudhari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All472
O.H. Mootham, C.J. 1. This Court has before it an objection preferred by the Bar Council to the admission of Sri Har Prasad Chaudhri as an Advocate of the Court,2. Sri Chaudhri was enrolled as a Vakil of this Court on the 1st August 1923, but almost immediately thereafter he entered the service of the Government of India in the Income-tax Department He was an Income-tax Officer for eighteen years and later was appointed successively to the offices of Assistant Income-tax Commissioner and Commissioner of Income-tax.For some time he was a member of the Income-tax Investigation Commission and for the last eighteen months of his service he was Director of Inspection, Special Investigation. After his retirement from Government service in 1056 he applied for enrolment as an Advocate but his admission is objected to by the Bar Council on the ground that he is not duly qualified.3. Rule 1 of the Rules made by the Bar Council under Section 9 of the Indian Bar Councils Act prescribes generally t...
Sohan Lal and anr. Vs. Smt. Bindeshwari Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All419
ORDERNasirullah Beg, J.1. This is an application in revision. It arises out of a suit filed by one Smt. Poona Devi, widow of one Chhabha Lal, for the recovery of Rs. 600/-; and, in the alternative, for the return of a gun. The gun in question is said to have been sold off by defendant No. 1 Sohan Lal, the pairokar of Chhabha Lal, to defendant No. 2 Madan Singh. Smt. Poona Devi died during the pendency of the suit. An application was made by six persons to be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased. The first four applicants claimed to be the daughters of Chhabha Lal deceased by his previous wife, the fifth applicant claimed to be the daughter's daughter and the sixth applicant claimed to be the daughter's son of Chhabba Lal deceased. All the applicants alleged themselves to be the children or descendants of Chhabba Lal deceased fey his previous wife. They also claimed to be the legal representatives in their capacity as legatees, as they alleged that Chhabba Lal had executed...
Damodar Sinha Vs. Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All437
ORDERJ.K. Tandon, J. 1. The petitioner is one Damodar Sinnha who held the post of a Naib Tahsildar since 1937. In 1950 he was selected in due course for the post of Tahsildar through the Public Service Commission. He was thereafter appointed by the Board of Revenue in the post of Tahsildar and placed on probation for a period of two years with effect from April 30, 1951. This period expired on 30-4-1953, but on 15th June 1953 he was informed that the probationary period had been extended by one year which carried it to 30-4-1954. During all this period he continued to work as Tahsildar and also earned one increment after one year of service as Tahsildar.In July 1955, nearly 15 months after the expiry of the extended period of probation, he was served with a notice, at the instance of the Land Reforms Commissioner U. P., to the effect that his record of service as Tahsildar during the period of probation from 30-4-1951 to 30-4-1953 was unsatisfactory and that he had further deteriorated...
Sm. Ram Piari Vs. Sm. Brijrani and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All509
V.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of a learned single. Judge of this Court in a second appeal.2. The following pedigree is necessary in order to understand the facts of the case : DEBI DIN=TULSHA | ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ | | | | |Ram Charan= Tulsha Ram Prasad=Brijrani Ram Sahai Ram Dei Ram Sarup=Ram Piari (alias Bari Bahu) (Alias Manjhli Bahu) O.S.P. | (alias Chhoti Bahu) Defendant 5 Defendant 1 | Plaintiff | | _____________________________ | Munni(Dead) Shyam Behari=Ganga | | Shyam Manohar (Defendant 2) Jagdish Prasad Mahesh Prasad (Defendant 3) (Defendant 2)3. In November, 1913, Ram Sahai having died previously, Debi Din and his three surviving sons Ram Charan, Ram Prasad and Ram Sarup divided the family property by a private partition. Properties entered at (a) and (b) of list A attached to the plaint were allotted to Ram Charan and that at (c) was allotted to Ram Sarup.4. Ram Charan ...
Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur and ors. Vs. Ram Murat Singh and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All710
1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Mehrotra dated 29-1-1957.2. The respondent, Sri Ram Murat Singh, was a head constable in the U. P. Police Force. In December, 1954, he and another head constable were charged under Section 7 of the Police Act with remissness and dishonesty in the discharge of their duties. A departmental trial was held which was conducted by Sri B. N. Singh, a Deputy Superintendent of Police. This officer found the charge to be established and was of opinion that both the persons charged should be dismissed from the Force, and an order to this effect was subse-quently made by the Superintendent of Police on 9th May, 1950.Against this order the respondent appealed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Banaras, but his appeal was dismissed on 22-11-1955 and an application in revision to thei Inspector General of Police was rejected on 24-6-1955. Thereafter the respondent filed a petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitut...
Hukum Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All690; 1959CriLJ1258
Verma, J.1. Hukum Singh, Surajbhan, Sher Jang, Bhartu and Ram Chandra have filed this appeal against their conviction and the sentences awarded to them by the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur. All the five of them have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149. Indian Penal Code, and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. They all have also been convicted under Section 323 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Ram Chandra has been further convicted under Section 148, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment whereas the remaining four appellants, namely Hukum Singh, Suraj Bhan, Sher Jang and Bhartu, have been convicted under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, and have been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge has directed the sentences to run concurrently.2. The charge against the appellants was that they on 12-12-1954 at about 9 A.M. in...
Chaturbhuj and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1958
Reported in: [1959]36ITR386(All)
The judgment of the court wads delivered byBHARGAVA J. - The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this court is :'Whether there was any material to warrant the finding that the sums of Rs. 16,200 and Rs. 13,700 in dispute were profits of the assessee liable to tax ?'The assessee in this case is a registered firm having three partners, Pooranchand, Shivji Bhai and Parshotam. Parshotam is the son of Shivji Bhai. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1945-46 for which the relevant previous year ran from 29th October, 1943, to 13th October, 1944. The assessee firm submitted a return on the basis of the account books and the trading result as disclosed was accepted by the Income-tax Officer with only minor additions which additions were subsequently deleted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In one respect, however, the account books were not accepted. That related to these two entries of credits of sums of Rs. 16,200 and Rs. 13,700 in the ...
J.N. Bhagga and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All492; 1959CriLJ929
S.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the order of the Additional District Magistrate Allahabad dated 31-10-1955 acquitting the six respondents of the offence under Section 7 of the Indian Copyright Act III of 1914.2. The facts which led to the prosecution of the respondents are these. Messrs Law Book Company is a firm of publishers who have specialised in the publication of legal literature. The six respondents are the partners o this firm. Sri J. N. Bagga, respondent No. 1 is the Manager. It appears that they also published reprints of various Acts passed by the Central Legislature. In 1952 they received a communication from the Government of India objecting to the publication of 'bare texts of a number of Central Acts' by this firm. The letter pointed out that in doing so the firm was infringing the provisions of Section 18 of the Copyright Act of 1914.It also directed the firm to stop forthwith the sale and distribution of these publications, to...
Kuldip Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. Ch. Pratap Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All505
1. This is an appeal by M/s. Kuldip Oil Industries the defendant in the suit. The plaintiff Ch. Pratap Singh filed the suit claiming a sum of Rs. 12,500/- as principal plus Rs. 114/-as interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from 8-1-1946 to 16-7-1947, in all Rs. 13,641/- with pendente lite and future interest and also the cost of the suit.2. The case of the plaintiff was that Kuldip Singh, one of the Directors of the defendant company approached the plaintiff early in January, 1946 for the purchase of shares of the defendant company on the distinct understanding,(a) that the plaintiff would be taken in as one of the promoter Director of the company.(b) that the prospectus of the company was very promising and it was being floated without any liability whatsoever; and(c) that it belonged primarily to members of the Ahluwalia Community, to which both the plaintiff and Kuldip Singh belonged and the directorate would invariably consist of the same; that on the basis of the above rep...
Dr. Prem Beharilal Saksena Vs. Director of Medical and Health Services ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All629
ORDERJ.K. Tandon, J.1. The petitioner in this case is one Dr. Prem Behari Lal. The relevant facts minus unnecessary details are that he was appointed by theGovernment on the post of Anaesthetist at the State hospitals at Kanpur which are Ursla Horsman Memorial Hospital and Sri Lajpat Rai Hospital. This was done in 1951 on a scale of 200-10-250 EB 10-310 EB 14-450. Prior to his appointment on this post the Public Service Commission was in the usual course asked to make the selection.The notification issued by the Public Service Commission inviting applications from prospective candidates has been filed as Anncxure 4 to the main affidavit of the petitioner. In this document various matters which it was necessary to notify to the candidates were also mentioned but the one which is directly relevant here was as follows :'Each Anaesthetist will be under the direct control of the Civil Surgeon of the District concerned and will administer anaesthetics to the patients at the Government hospit...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »