Allahabad Court October 1959 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.
Rati Ram Ji Vs. Mithan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All408
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal in a suit for ejectment. The appellant contested the suit on the grounds, inter alia, that the notice served by the landlord under Section 106 of the T. P. Act prior to the filing of the suit was invalid. The trial Court held that the notice was invalid and dismissed the suit-The lower appellate court reversed this finding andheld that the notice was valid. It accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for the appellant's eviction with costs. He has now come to this court in Second Appeal.2. The only point urged before me is that the notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act was not a valid notice according to law and therefore the suit was not maintainable. The facts of the case are these. The appellant Rati Ram, a practising Vakil, has been the tenant of the respondent Mithan Lal without interruption since 1938. In 1953 the landlord applied to the District Magistrate for permission under Section 3 of the Control of Rent and ...
Shiamlal Vs. Smt. Sahodra Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All429
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's second appeal against an order of the lower appellate court rejecting his objection against the sale of his house in execution of a decree passed against him. It is not necessary to state the facts which have led up to this appeal as Mr. Amibika Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, argued only one question of law before me. He contended that the courts below had wrongly deprived the appellant of the status of an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 60(c) C. P. C. merely because he was in receipt of a pension from Government. The appellant is a retired Sub-Inspector getting a pension of Rs. 75/9/-. This fact was taken into account by the courts below in holding that, as the appellants' main income was from this pension, he could not be considered as an agriculturist under Section 60(c). The appellant had contended that, as he was living in the village and cultivating his holdings, he must be regarded as an agriculturist and give...
Sardar Kartar Singh Vs. Smt. Phoolwati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1959
Reported in: AIR1961All95
B. Upadhya, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. The only ground urged by learned counsel for the appellant is that the courts below have taken an erroneous view of the law in holding that Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act did not apply to the facts of the case where the provisions of Section 3 (1) (a) of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act were applicable. The facts very briefly are that the plaintiff after acquiring title to the property brought a suit for ejectment and for arrears of rent and alleged that the defendant was in wilful default in respect of a demand for arrears of rent made by the plaintiff.The defendant pleaded that the notice of demand had not been received by him. But this contention was not accepted by the courts below. The courts found that the defendant was in wilful default within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (a) and there was no impediment in the way of the plaintiff bringing a suit for his eject...
Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd., Hargaon Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All136
V. Bhargava, J.1. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment proposed to be delivered by my brother J. Sahai, J., and I entirely agree with him on all the points dealt with by him and the reasons given by him. I may, however, add, that I have felt considerable difficulty on one aspect of the case which relates to the submission of Messrs, Pathak and Jagdish Swarup that the provisions of the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as also the schedule to the Act show that it is a lax not on land but on the person who holds the land.The Act undoubtedly lays down that a person having a small area of land has to pay proportionately a small amount of tax but, if the same and is held by another person who already holds a vast area of land, that very small portion of land would be assessed to a higher amount of tax. The incidence of tax is thus not dependent entirely on characteristics of the land itself, such as its area, quality of soil or value wheth...
Smt. Moti Kuer and anr. Vs. Bindhachal Pande and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All379
R.N. Gurtu, J.1. Three persons, Ram Sanehi, Bindhachal Pande and Bhirgu Pande, the last two being the sons of Ram Sanehi, filed a suit for malicious prosecution against the appellants.2. The suit was contested by the appellants and it was dismissed by the trial court.3. The allegation in the complaint which the appellants had filed was that the three plaintiffs had beaten Smt. Moti Kuer.4. Smt. Moti Kuer was examined in the suit for malicious prosecution and she repeated what had been said in the complaint.5. The trial court, held that the plaintiffs have failed to definitely and affirmatively prove that the complaint filed by Smt. Moti Kuer was false and without any reasonable and probable cause.6. On appeal, the court below has held the plaintiffs' case to be proved and decreed the suit as against the appellants for Rs. 425/-. It has held that the plaintiffs had never beaten Smt. Moti Kuer and her husband, Ram Das Pande, as alleged and that the complaint filed against them was false ...
Manna Lal Govila Vs. Dr. J.N. Mathur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All534
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is a civil revision against a decree of the learned Civil Judge, Varanasi dismissing the plaintiff applicant's suit for fixation ot rent under the Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The plaintiff, Munna Lal Govila, is the landlord of certain premises in Mohalla Maldhaiya, Varanasi and the defendant respondent J. N. Mathur, is his tenant. It appears that the defendant made an application to the District Magistrate who fixed the reasonable rent of the premises at Rs. 40 per mensem. Aggrieved by this decision the plaintiff filed a suit in the civil court on the ground that the decision of the District Magistrate is 'illegal, arbitrary and wholly ultra vires'. He contended that the reasonable rent of the premises should be Rs. 67/8/- per month. The learned Judge, after hearing the evidence of both the parties held that the proper rent was Rs. 40/- per mensem and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Aggrieved by this decision the plaintiff has come to this Court in re...
Abdul Ghafoor Vs. Property of Samiulla
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All527
J.K. Tandon, J. 1. This is an appeal under the Guardians and Wards Act against an order of the learned District Judge, Lucknow, dated 17-5-1958, by which he imposed a fine of Rs. 10/- per day till such time as the security in the sum of Rupees 30,000/- was filed by the guardian. The facts giving rise to the proceedings out of which the present appeal arose are thus.2. The applicant who is the elder brother of opposite party Samiullah was appointed guardian of the property of the latter by an order of the District Judge dated 18-3-1950. An application was made by the mother of Samiullah on 27-8-1957, asking that the guardian may be required to deposit the amount of Rs. 27,000/- which was due to the minor from the firm Haji Khuda Bakhsh Haji Faqir Bakhsh also a further sum of Rs. 1,500/- said to have been realised from the income-tax authorities on his behalf.This application purported to be under Section 43 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The appellant to whom notice was Issued on the s...
Kailash Nath Halwai Vs. Registrar Co-operative Society, U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All294
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. This is a special appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Mehrotra dismissing the appellant's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The appellant was employed by the Consumers Co-operative Society, Kydganj, Allahabad, as a Manager of one of the shops run by the Society. The appellant deposited Rs. 3,000/- for security. He claimed this amount and a sum of Rs. 355/-as his dues from the Society. The Society urged certain claims of its own against the appellant and ultimately referred the dispute with respect to its claim against the appellant to the Registrar in view of Rule 115 of the Rules framed under Section 43 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1912. The Registrar made over the dispute to the arbitrator. The arbitrator gave his award holding that the appellant should pay Rs. 895/11/- as principal, Rs. 233/- as interest and Rs. 15/- as other charges to the Society. He also awarded future interest on the amount of the principal from the date of the...
Shahab UddIn Khan Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All373; 1960CriLJ778; [1960(1)FLR41]; (1960)ILLJ288All
ORDERM.C. Desai, J. 1. The applicant was tried for the offence of Section 92, Factories Act on a complaint filed by the Chief Inspector. The conviction is supported by evidence; I do not see anything illegal or even improper in the trial court's believing the solitary testimony of the Chief Inspector and disbelieving the evidence of the defence witnesses.2. It was contended that cognizance of the offence could not be taken by the trial court on a complaint by the Chief Inspector and reliance was placed upon Section 105(1) of the Factories Act and Notification No. 5754 (LM) (V)/XVIII-284 (LM)-49, dated 23-11-1949. under Section 105(1) a court is prohibited from taking cognizance of an offence under the Act 'except on complaint by, or with the previous sanction in writing of, an Inspector'' : The complaint in this case does not purport, and is not alleged, to have been filed with the previous sanction in writing of an Inspector; so the words 'with the previous sanction in writing of' are...
Abdul Hakim Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All450; 1960CriLJ1037
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. The applicant, who has been convicted under Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, is the manager, printer and proprietor of Asrar Karimi Press in Allahabad. Aman Ullah applicant in the companion case has been convicted through the same judgment under Section 7 of the Copyright Act and Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act.2. In 1944-45 a firm in Allahabad, known as Rai Saheb Ram Dayal Agarwala, carrying on the business of publishing, printing and selling books, got a series of books known as Abr-e-Rahmat compiled by one Khan Saheb Chhotey Khan and got them approved by the Islamia Maktab Committee of Uttar Pradesh for use in Islamia Maktabs in the State. The series consists of a primer called Abr-e-Rahmat Primer and three volumes called Abr-e-Rahmat I, Abr-e-Rahmat II and Abr-e-Rahmat III. Chhotey Khan transferred his copyright in the series to the firm which now holds absolute copyright in it. The series was printed in Shanti Press...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »