Allahabad Court October 1959 Judgments
Balloo Ram Bookseller Vs. Chhedi Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All477
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal against a decree for ejectment. The suit for ejectment was dismissed by the trial Court, but, on appeal, decreed by the learned Judge. The appellant Balloo Ram is the tenant of the plaintiff-respondent Chhedi Lal. The accommodation in dispute is situate in Banda. The landlord served notice on Balloo Ram to pay the rent within one month. As he did not receive it, he filed the suit for ejectment. Balloo Ram contested the suit on the ground that the notice was received in his absence while he was away on business.He alleged that on his return his wife informed him of the notice which had been received in, his absence. According to him, this was the first time he came to know about it. On the very next day he sent the amount due to the plaintiff, but the latter had already filed a suit and refused to accept the amount tendered by Balloo Ram. The defendant contended that the suit for ejectment was not maintainable as he had tendered the ren...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Calcutta Singh Vs. Registrar, Banaras Hindu University and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All642
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Calcutta Singh for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 11-6-1959 passed by the Registrar, Banaras Hindu University, respondent No. 1, and also Resolution No. 61 dated 8-6-1959 passed by the Academic Council of the Banaras Hindu University on the basis of which the Registrar issued the order. A request was also made for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner of the M. Sc. (Tech.) Previous Examination, 1959, and not to interfere with the petitioner's right of pursuing the M. Sc. (Tech.) Final Examination during the current session.2. The petitioner was a student studying in the M.Sc. (Technical) Previous Examination of the Banaras Hindu University and in the month of May, 1959 was appearing in the Previous Examination conducted by that University. He was examined on three different dates, May 1, 4 and 6, 1959, in the...
Tag this Judgment!Chaitanya Prakash Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All376; 1960CriLJ779
ORDERM.C. Desai, J. 1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908) for knowingly having in his possession or control an explosive substance in the circumstances showing that he was not having it in his possession, for a lawful object. It has been found as a matter of fact, on the basis of evidence, that he was carrying the explosive bomb in a pocket of his knickers and that it exploded causing injuries to him. He offered no explanation for his possession of the bomb; on the contrary he denied his possession of it altogether.2. Section 7 of the Act lays down that 'no court shall proceed with the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Central Government'. The cognizance of the offence under the Act was taken in this case by a court with the consent of the Governor and not the Central Government. The Governor claims to have the power to give consent under Notification No. 25/1/54-Police (I) dated...
Tag this Judgment!Sajjan Singh Vs. Smt. Jamuna Bala Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All410
S.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is a tenant's second appeal against a decree for ejectment. The appellant Sajjan Singh was the tenant of Smt. Jamini Bala Devi. The parties live in Mathura and the house in dispute is situate in that city and is subject to the provisions of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The lady obtained the permission of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura, under Section 3 of the Act to file a suit for the appellant's ejectment. The permission was given on the ground that the lady needed the house for her own use, and this decision was confirmed in revision by the Commissioner on 21-1-1956. who also based its decision on the genuineness of the need of Smt. Jamini Bala Devi.2. After obtaining permission, but before filing the suit for the eviction of the tenant, the lady partitioned her property between her four sons. The house in dispute was allotted to the share of Sirohat Kumar Gangoli, plaintiff respondent No. 2. He filed the suit for eviction of the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Vanaspati Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Vs. Municipal Board and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1962All25
O.H. Mootham, C.J.(7-4-1950) 1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Mehrotra. The appellant is a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It has factories at various places in India, including one at Ghaziabad in this State. In this factory the appellant company manufactures banaspati, and for that purpose it requires supplies of raw materials which are brought into the factory premises in railway wagons. The factory premises are connected with the main railway line by a branch line known as an 'Assisted Railway Siding' which terminates within the factory premises; and all wagons bringing supplies to the factory make use of this siding.2. The appellant company's premises at Ghaziabad are situated within the limits of the Ghaziabad Municipal Board. That Board claimed to be entitled to levy a toll under Section 128 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, on the railway wagons bringing supplies to the appellant company's factory and to collect the amount ther...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad Hasan Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through General Manager, E.i. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All530
ORDERV.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision by the plaintiff against an order of dismissal in a suit filed by him for compensation for non-delivery of the goods.2. The plaintiff was a dealer inter alia in cigarettes and he had purchased 50,000 cigarettes from the National Tobacco Company Limited of India. They were supplied from their depot at Unnao and were packed in two cases, and were handed over to the railway authorities at the Ajgain railway station to be despatched to Amroha on 8-11-1950 and railway receipt No. 678514 was issued to the plaintiff. At Amroha only one package of the consignment was delivered but not the other. Thereafter a notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act and Section 80 C. P. C. were given to the Chief Commercial Manager, East Indian Railway on 5-12-50 and since the Railway did not pay the damages, hence the suit.3. The defence inter alia was that the notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act and under Section 80, Civil P. C. were inval...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwati Mahraj Vs. Shambhu Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All562
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This second appeal raises the question whether the agreement between the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder under which the decree-holder foregoes his right to execute the decree in consideration of the judgment-debtor's foregoing his right to appeal against the decree is a matter for investigation by the execution court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant is the judgment-debtor. When the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree he raised two objections. First, he Contended that the decree-holder was not entitled to execute the decree as he had agreed not to do so provided the judgment-debtor did not appeal against the degree. Secondly, he objected to the attachment and sale of certain items of his property for which he claimed exemption under the category of cooking vessels and weaving apparels.The first objection was rejected by the execution court on the ground that it was 'absurd'. The second objection was partly allowed and ...
Tag this Judgment!Kewal Ram Vs. Mihi Lal Ram Khiloni
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All655
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision under Section 115 C. P. C. against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Etah reversing the decree of the trial court and remanding the suit for retrial. The plaintiff Kewalram filed a suit against the defendant respondent Mihilal Ram Khiloni for the recovery of certain sums which were alleged to be due to him as losses incurred on behalf of the defendant in making certain Arhati transactions on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff claimed to have acted as the defendant's agent. The defence was that the plaintiff had disobeyed the express instructions, which, if carried out, would not have resulted in the alleged losses. According to the defendant, the market was falling and the plaintiff sold the stock of sugar which was the subject matter of Arhati transactions after wilful delay and had to thank himself for the losses.The plaintiff denied that he received any such instructions to unload the stock without delay and pleaded that h...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Khairunnisa and ors. Vs. Ganga Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1959
Reported in: AIR1961All191
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. This is a special appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Chaturvedi dismissing the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Mazhar Ali, the appellant, died during the pendency of the appeal and his heirs have been brought on the record.3. Ganga Prasad, respondent No. 1, and the other respondents 2 to 4 were rejected by the zamindar Afzal Husain, respondent No. 5, in execution of a decree under Section 171 of the U. P. Tenancy Act on the 29th April 1942. On the 2nd August 1943 the land was let to Mazhar Ali who filed the writ petition. He built a well and planted a grove on the land in suit. He also put up some other constructions. This was permissible under the lease.4. In 1947 the U. P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act X of 1947 came into force. Section 27 of this Act provided for the reinstatement of a tenant who had been ejected from his holding on or after the first day of January 1940 under Section 171 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, otherwise than on t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kastoori Devi Vs. Chiranji Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All446
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by Sbrimati Kasturi Devi against the order of the Judge Small Cause Court. Rampur, dismissing her suit against her husband Chiranji Lal for recovery of arrears of maintenance. She alleged in her suit that she was the lawfully wedded wife of Chiranji Lal having been married to him more than 20 years ago. The marriage was intercaste the husband being a Brahman and the wife a Thakur. At the time of this marriage Kasturi Devi was a widow. They lived and cohabited for 20 years but in 1954 the defendant Chiranji Lal took another wife and then turned the plaintiff out of his house. He even refused to maintain her (khana kapra dena bhi band kar diya) and she was compelled to make an application for maintenance against him under the Cr. P. C.On 29-4-1954, there was a gathering of the village Panchayat resulting in a settlement and a written agreement under which the husband Chiranjilal agreed to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »