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.
Rajjaua Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All718; 1959CriLJ1271
A.P. Srivastava, J. 1. These two applications in criminal revision are connected with each other in the sense that thesame question of law arises in them. They can, therefore be disposed of by the same judgment.2. Criminal Revision No. 55 of 1957 is on behalf of Rajjaua. He was convicted by a Magistrate First Class of Fatehpur under Section 411 I. P. C., and was sentenced to nine months' R. I. His conviction was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, but he reduced the sentence to six months' R. I. The facts found against him by the two Courts are that in the night between the 15th and 16th of July 1956 certain ornaments marked Exs. I to VIII in the case were stolen from the house of Jagdeo. On 19-7-1956 the house of the applicant was searched and these stolen ornaments were recovered from a room in the exclusive possession of the applicant where they were lying buried under the ground. The applicant denied the factum of recovery and did not offer any explanation as to how the...
Mathura Das Vs. Harish Chandra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All700
Nasirullah Beg, J. 1. This is a decree-holders appeal. It arises out of execution proceedings. An application for execution was given by the decree-holder on 24-11-1951. This was the fourth application for execution. An objection to the execution was taken by the judgment-debtors on the ground that this application was barred by limitation as a previous application dated the 20th November, 1945 for execution of the same decree was not an application in accordance with law. If the application dated 20-11-1945, is considered to be an application not in accordance with law, then it is conceded on behalf of the appellant that the present application would be barred by limitation. The contention of the decree-holder-appellant, however, is that the execution application of 20-11-1945, was an application in accordance with law. There is no doubt that the decree-holder did give an application for execution. This application for execution was good in every respect except that there was a trivia...
Kanpur Iron Brass Works and Flour Mills Vs. Banarsi Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All755
Nasirullah Beg, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the Kanpur Iron Brass Works and Flour Mills. '2. The appellant was the defendant in a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 3,000/-, which was alleged by the plaintiff to have been advanced to the defendant towards the purchase of 20 Bengal Type Kolhus to be manufactured by the defendant and delivered to the plaintiff according to the agreement between the parties. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant had committed breach of contract by failing to supply the kolhus as stipulated, and hence he claimed a refund of the above amount. The plaintiff further claimed an amount of Rs. 810/- by way of interest.3. The suit was resisted by the defendant. The defendant's case was that there was no breach of contract on his part. The defendant had manufactured the 20 kolhus which he had undertaken to construct, that the said kolhus were lying in his workshop, and that, in spite of repeated notices on his part the plaintiff ...
Ram Autar Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Jhansi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All377
O.H. Mootham, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice James dated the 17th September, 1958, dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellant is the owner of two adjacent houses, one of which was in the occupation of a tenant. On the 17th October, 1956, the tenant vacated that house and made over possession of it to the appellant. Two days later on the 19th October, the appellant informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the premises had fallen vacant, and at the same time he asked that they be released in his favour as they were needed by him for his personal occupation.On the 31st October the appellant appeared before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and his statement was recorded. No action was however taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and on the 24th November the appellant wrote to that officer informing him that he had occupied the premises and that they should not be allotted to any other person. On the 7th D...
State of U.P. Vs. Satyavir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All408; 1959CriLJ795
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. A commitment can be quashed on a question of law and law only. No question of law is involved in the commitment of the applicant to stand trial for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. There is no direct evidence and, therefore, there are no eye-witnesses, i.e. witnesses to the actual commission of the offence and Section 207A(4) is inapplicable. When there are no eye-witnesses there cannot possibly arise any question of the Magistrate's failure to examine them. Even when there are eye-witnesses the Magistrate is not bound to record the evidence of all of them; he is only required to record the evidence of only such of them as are produced by the prosecution.So it is for the prosecution to decide how many of the eye-witnesses should be examined; the Magistrate cannot compel to examine any particular witness or refuse to examine any eye-witness. The Magistrate has the power of examining other witnesses, but is not bound to examine them and no Magistrate failing to ...
Tewari (S.R.) Vs. Agra District Board and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1958
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ36All
O.H. Mootham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The facts can be stated very shortly. In 1943 the petitioner was appointed as the engineer to the respondent board, and later in that year he was confirmed in this appointment. He thereafter served the board until the 18 October 1954, when a resolution was passed by the board that his services be terminated and he be given three months' pay in lieu of notice. The petitioner sought to appeal against this order to the State Government, but the latter declined to intervene. The petitioner then filed this petition which came on for hearing before Mr. Justice Mehrotra, who being of opinion that it raised a question of law of some importance has referred it to a Bench.3. The argument for the petitioner, which has been stated very succinctly by Mr. S.N. Kackar, is that although the board had the power to punish or dismiss the petitioner, it had no power otherwise to terminate his services in the absence of a spec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›