Allahabad Court August 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.
Ram Prashad Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Agra Region, Agra an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All197
ORDERJ.K. Tandon, J. 1. This and five other writ petitions, Nos. 2360, 2361, 2362, 2363 and 2364 all of 1957, have similar facts and raise identical questions of law. They have also been heard together and can be disposed of by a single judgment. 2. I shall, therefore reproduce here the facts in writ petition No. 2359 of 1957 and shall if need be refer to any extra fact in the sister writ petitions should it be necessary in disposing it. 3. Ram Prasad the petitioner in writ No. 2359 of 1957, held road permit No. 116 A for a stage carriage on Agra Shamshabad-Tula road. The last permit granted to him was in 1954 which was valid upto 12-8-1957. On 11-6-1951, the State Government nationalised the above route and made the declaration under Section 3 of the U. P. State Road Transport Act,1951. that the stage carriages by the State shall be run on it to the exclusion of the petitioner. Subsequently in pursuance of a scheme prepared under the Act, the petitioner was served with a notice that h...
Pt. Kahadhyalal Bhargava Vs. U.P. Government
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All236
M.L. Chaturvedi, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Improvement Trust Tribunal of Allahabad dismissing the appellant's reference to the Tribunal for assessment of proper compensation of a piece of land which has been acquired by the Improvement Trust, Allahabad. 2. On the 13th August, 1938 a notification was published in the U.P. Gazette under Section 36 of the U.P. Town Improvement Act (Act VIII of 1919). The notification was to the effect that the improvement scheme had been framed with respect to the area which was mentioned in the notification and it also mentioned the place at which the particulars could be seen. As a consequence of this notice, the acquisition of the appellant's piece of land having an area of 616 sq. yards was made and possession was taken over from the appellant. There was no dispute as far as the actual acquisition of the piece of land was concerned. The Land Acquisition Officer then considered what compensation the appellant and a tenant of a...
The Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All226
R.N. Gurtu, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court given in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 2292 of 1957.2. The petitioner, according to his affidavit filed in support of his petition, appeared in the High School Examination held by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P., (hereinafter called the Board) in March, 1955, and passed the same. Subsequently he appeared in the Intermediate examination held by the Board in March, 1957. According to the affidavit, the petitioner received a letter from the District Inspector of Schools on the 30th of May, 1957, which greatly surprised him. We will quote the relevant part of this letter, which is :'Has the honour to ask him to present himself just when he is in receipt of this registered letter before the undersigned for making some inquiry with him.'The petitioner states in his affidavit that the result of the Intermediate examination for 1957 was published in the papers in June, 1957, but...
H. Abdul Wahid Abdul Ghani Vs. Dr. Balkrishna Vishunath Keskar and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1960All113
V. Bhargava, J.1. Haji Abdul Wahid has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash a decision of the Election Tribunal, Allahabad dated 25-9-1957, by which the Tribunal dismissed under Section 90(3) of the Representation of the People Act an election, petition which had been presented by the present petitioner challenging the election of opposite party No. 1, Dr. Balkrishna Vishunath Keskar, to the House of the People from the Sultanpur Mus-firakhana Constituency No. 358.The ground, on which the Tribunal dismissed the election petition under Section 90(3) of the Representation of the People Act, was that the Government Treasury receipt attached to the election petition by the petitioner when he presented the election petition to the Election Commission, did not show that the sum of Rs. 1,000/- deposited as security had been deposited in favour of the Secretary, Election Commission. The Tribunal held that the provisions of Sec...
Talewar Jha Vs. Mool Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All96; 1959CriLJ123
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. In this application an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, under Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is challenged. Mool Chand, opposite party, and others were prosecuted before an Assistant Sessions Judge for the offence of Section 380, I. P. C. It was alleged that they committed theft in the cloth shop of the applicant Talawar Jha and stole pieces of cloth. During the trial some pieces of cloth admittedly recovered from the houses of Mool Chand and others were produced before the court.Mool Chand admitted that the cloth was recovered from his possession but claimed that it belonged to him. Others denied the recovery fromtheir possession and did not lay any claim to the cloths said to have been recovered from their possession. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted some of the accused and acquitted the others including Mool Chand. He ordered under Section 517of the Code that the pieces of cloth which bore the seal or signature of Talaw...
State Vs. Devi Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All421; 1959CriLJ803
B. Mukerji, J.1. Although I am in entire agreement with the opinion expressed by my learned brother Asthana, yet I should like to say a few words of my own since the question that was raised in this case related to the jurisdiction of a Bench of this Court and as such was a matter of importance. It is not necessary for me to go into the facts in any detail since my learned brother's judgment has incorporated in it all the relevant facts necessary for the determination of the question that arose for determination. Suffice it to say that on the 24th March, 1958, a Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice James and Mr. Justice Takru directed a notice to issue to the opposite party before us, Devi Dayal, to show cause, within three weeks, why the sentences which had been passed on him by the Magistrate by his Order dated the 29th October, 1957, be not enhanced. This notice was directed to issue by the aforementioned bench ostensibly in the exercise of, as they said, 'the High Court's ...
M.H. Alexander and anr. Vs. Smt. Claira Alexander
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All67; 1959CriLJ14
ORDERA.N. Mulla, J. 1. The facts which led to the filing of this application of criminal revision are as follows. 2. Smt. Claira Alexander is the married wife of Sri M. H. Alexander. They were married several years ago and they were also parents of some children. On 19-8-1957 Smt. Claira Alexander filed a complaint under Section 494 I. P. C. against her husband and Smt. Karuna Kumari alleging that they entered into a bigamous marriage. This complaint was filed in the court of a Judicial Officer at Lucknow. The complaint did not disclose as to when and where the bigamous marriage was performed. Smt. Claira Alexander was examined on 26-8-1957 under Section 200 Cr. P. C. by the Magistrate and even in this statement she gave no information about the date and the place where this alleged bigamous marriage was performed. It is therefore surprising how this complaint was entertained at all. Courts entertain complaints when they are satisfied not that an offence has been committed but that an ...
Hardeva Vs. State Through Mst. Lali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All781; 1959CriLJ1389
ORDERV.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge against an order passed by a Magistrate of Saharanpur.2. It appears that one Hardeo for himself and for his brother filed an application on 10-4-1956 against Smt. Lalli, Sukhbir. Ranbir and Balbir opposite parties alleging that he and his brothers were the sirdars of the plots and were in actual possession of it and they had been cultivating the sir for the last ten years. The opposite parties without any right wanted to dispossess them illegally and with force and they had harvested the crop. Hence an application was filed under Section 145, Cr. P. C. as there was danger of breach of the peace.A report was called for from the station officer and the evidence of both the parties was recorded. After going through the evidence the Magistrate came to the conclusion that it was not possible for him to come to any conclusion as to which of the parties was in possession within two months of the date of dispossessio...
Kumar Jagdish Chandra Vs. Bulaqi Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All242
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. This is a Special Appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice Oak allowing the execution second appeal by the respondents-decree-holders.2. Kunwar Jagdish Chandra, appellant, the owner of the plot in dispute leased it to Bulaqi Das and Narain Das respondents for a term of 11 years on 31-10-1930. The respondents sub-leased the plot and the sub-lessee constructed a building on it. Later on the appellant purchased the materials of that building when sold in execution of adecree and took possession of the plot and the building.In 1933 the respondents instituted the civil suit out of which has arisen this appeal for the recovery of possession and mesne profits against Jag-dish Chandra, appellant. On 2-1-1935 the suit was decreed for possession as well as for mesne profits and the decree directed payment of pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 30/-per mensem until delivery of possession.3. Jagdish Chandra filed an appeal against that decree and the d...
Firm Har Prasad Sheodutt Rai Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Bulandshahr
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All246; [1959]10STC277(All)
M.L. Chaturvedi, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of an assessment order dated the 30th May 1958 and a demand notice dated the 2nd Tune 1958 issued by the Sales-tax Officer of Bulandshahr.2. The main contention of the learned counsel in this writ petition is that the Sales-tax Officer was not authorised under Section 21 of the U. P. Sales-tax Act to assess the petitioner. The contention is that previously a tax had been assessed on the petitioner in which the entire turnover was included, but at that time the Sales Tax Officer did not hold that the petitioner should be assessed on the entire turn-over, because he accepted the books of account of the petitioner which showed that part of the turn-over was concerning goods which the petitioner had purchased in the State.Subsequently, by the impugned order he held that the entire turn-over of the petitioner was liable to assessment to sales-tax because the entire goods were purchased b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »