Allahabad Court November 1959 Judgments
Punjab Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All444; (1960)ILLJ756All
Dwivedi, J.1. The Punjab Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Ghughli, has preferred this appeal against the order of Mr. Justice Chaturvedi dated 18-11-1955, by which he dismissed the appellant's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellant manufactures sugar and also carries on some allied business. Its employees are organised in a trade union known as the Chini Mill Karamchari Sangh, Ghughli (hereinafter referred to as the Sangh). Some time in the year 1953 the Sangh raised a dispute in respect of the wages of six employees of the appellant, namely, Lakhan, Hansi, Sagni, Bansu, Tribeni and Rama. The State Government, by G. O. No. 1208(LC)/XVIII-LA-5/41 (GR)/1953, dated the 6th April 1953, referred the dispute to adjudication by Sri J. N. Khanna, Adjudicator, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 8 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the Adjudicator the principal contention of the appellant was that these six employees were not 'workmen' within...
Tag this Judgment!Subash Chand and anr. Vs. Smt. Sarjoo Dei
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All569
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a defendants' application under Section 151 C. P. C., against an order of the learned Munsif, Basti restoring the plaintiff's suit previously dismissed by the court for not carrying out the orders of the court and not filing certain documents.2. It appears that the plaintiff respondent Srimali Sarjoo Dei filed a suit for the issue of an injunction against the defendant applicant. She obtained an adjournment to file a map. On 23-2-1956, when the case was called up, neither the plaintiff nor her counsel was present. The court passed an order dismissing the suit in these terms :'23-2-56. Case called. Plaintiff absent. Her counsel also absent. Sri Chet Earn Pandey for defendant.The plaintiff is absent. No steps have been taken. Required map has not been filed. The order of the court has not been complied with. Defendant's counsel is present. At this stage Sri T. K. Shankar present for plaintiff....
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Dutt Tewari Vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1961All122; [1961(2)FLR454]; (1961)ILLJ431All
ORDERJagdish Sahai, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a constable in the Police Force of this State. In 1942 he was promoted to, the rank of Naik Constable and in 1945 to that of a Head Constable. In June 1955 he was posted as in-charge Head Constable at Police Outpost Regiment Bazar, Cantonment, Lucknow, S. I. Dharam Sen Singh was the Station Officer of the Police Station Cantonment and Sri D. D. Khosla was the City Deputy Superintendent of Police Lucknow at that time. In the night/ between 29th/30th June 1955 four or five house-trespass by night and theft cases took place within the limits of Cantonment Police Station.The petitioner entered the reports of those cases in the general diary maintained at the Regiment Bazar Outpost. It is his case that S. I. Dharam Sen Singh got annoyed with him on this account, as he considered the occurrence of four or five theft cases in one night in Ms Police Station as an adverse reflection on his administration. It is said by the petitioner that...
Tag this Judgment!Rampat Roy Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All380; 1960CriLJ780
Roy, J.1. This is a revision by Rampati Rai, who has been convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur under Section 406 I. P. C. and sentenced to two years simple imprisonment. He preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence but it was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur. He has now come up before this Court in revision. When the revision was admitted, notice was issued to the applicant by a learned Judge of this Court to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced. The revision and the notice have been heard by us.2. In order to appreciate the matter certain facts may be stated. In the year 1947 a case under Section 145 Cr. P. C. was started in the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Bansgaon in Gorakhpur district between Narsingh Pande and Ram Narain on the report of the Police, Barhalganj. In that case certain plots of land had been attached by the court together with standing crops and were delivered to the supardagi of on...
Tag this Judgment!Kamta Prasad Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1961All438; 1961CriLJ176
ORDERM.C. Desai, J. 1. The applicant challenges his conviction under Section 19(f), Arms Act. He is a blacksmith and is a member of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his brother Ram Charan and his father Mahendra, living in one house. It has been found by the Courts below that the house was searched by a sub-inspector of police when the applicant and his father were present but Ram Charan was absent, having gone to another village two days previously, and a sword, a kanta, a pistol, a barrel of a pistol and triggers were recovered from aroom and that the applicant and his father had no licence.The trial Court convicted all the three members of the joint family under Section 19(f), Arms Act, but the Additional Sessions Judge, on appeal, maintained the applicant's conviction and quashed that of Ram Charan and the father on the ground that they had no knowledge of the presence of the the arms because of being away from the house for two days Or of being too old and weak. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board, Kanpur Vs. Badloo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All504; 1960CriLJ1056
S.N. Dwivedi, J.1. This is an appeal by the Municipal Board, Kanpur, against the order of the Additional City Magistrate, Kanpur, acquitting the respondent of the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (VII of 1954), hereinafter called the Act.2. Badloo respondent was found selling milk on 24-9-1957. When asked by the food inspector he informed that he was selling mixed milk oil cow and buffalo. Thereupon the food inspector purchased some milk for the purpose of taking a sample thereof. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The Public Analyst reported that the sample contained 4.8 per cent fat and 7.4 per cent non-fatty solids. In his opinion the sample contained about 15 per cent added water and was adulterated. He has clearly stated in his report that the sample was analysed on the basis of the standards for mixed milk (cow and buffalo).3. The Oral evidence is of little importance. The Municipal; Board ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Sinha and anr. Vs. Public Prosecutor, Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All763; 1960CriLJ1541
ORDERR.A. Misra, J.1. The two applicants in this revision petition are Sri Ramesh Sinha, the Chief Editor, Printer and Publisher, and Sri Kali Shankar Shulela, Editor of the Weekly called Jan Yug published from Kaiserbagh, Lucknow. The petition itself has arisen under the following circumstances :2. Purporting to act under Section 198-B, Cr. P. C. the opposite-party, who is the Public Prosecutor, Lucknow, filed a complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the two applicants on 6-4-1959. Sanction to prosecute the two applicants was obtained under Section 198-B (3) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code from Sri N.G. Kaul, Home Secretary, U. P. Government, and the complaint was filed before the Sessions Judge, Lucknow. It was alleged in the complaint that in the issue of 'Jan Yug' dated the 2nd November, 1958, there was a news item under the caption 'Yeh bis lakh kaise bante', which contained scandalous statements against Dr. Sampurnanand, Mukhya Mantri, U.P. and Sri Hafiz ...
Tag this Judgment!Biram Prakash Chela M. Puran Das and ors. Vs. Narendra Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1959
Reported in: AIR1961All266
1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs belong to the Udasi sect and as such allege that they worship in the Dharamshala (also referred to sometimes as the Haveli), a part of which has now been alienated by Narendra Das, the mahant of Gaddi Shanter Shah defendant No. 1 and one Kesho Chandra defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs alleged that the said Dharamshala contains the samadhi of Baba Pakhatmal, the founder of Gaddi Shanter Shah, which Samadhi is the object of worship by the members of the Udasi sect.The said Dharamshala is, according to the plaint, managed by the Mahant of Gaddi Shanter Shah to whom it is entrusted but it is not a part of the said Gaddi bat is a separate endowment. The plaintiffs alleged that the sale deed dated the 14th Juno 1945 executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (the second defendant is alleged also to be a trustee appointed by a Certain committee to look after the affairs of Gaddi Shanter Shaha) of a part of the Dharamshala aforesaid in favour ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Krishna Prasad Vs. Mohd. Yahia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All482
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal against a decree for ejectment. This is one of the many cases coming to this Court from time to time in which the shortcomings and anomalies of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act are revealed. The facts which have led to the appeal are these: The appellant Rain Krishna Prasad is the tenant of a shop in Ghazipur of which the landlord is the respondent Mohd. Yahia. On 7-5-1953 the landlord sent him by registered post a notice written on a post-card, which, according to him, was a notice for demand for arrears of rent under Section 3 (1) (a) of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act. No rent was paid within one month of the receipt of this notice, but on 24-9-1953 the tenant remitted a sum of Rs. 225 by money order which was refused by the landlord. On 11-11-1953 the landlord filed his suit for ejectment.The defendant denied that he had committed any default in payment of rent, he alleged that it was the other way about and th...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Mohd. Kashmiri Vs. an Advocate
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All660; 1960CriLJ1390
Mootham, C.J.1. This is a difficult case. The Bar Council Tribunal has found the charge of professional misconduct which it framed against the Advocate of inordinate delay in the presentation of a petition, not to be proved, but the correctness of that finding has been challenged before us. In considering this matter I think that in the first place it is convenient to state shortly the facts which are not in dispute.2. The complainant had been a lower division clerk in the Central Excise Department, but his services were terminated by a notice which expired on 30-6-1956. He was then residing in Rampur, and on the 4th July he came to Allahabad to instruct an Advocate of this Court to file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of having notice terminating his services quashed. The Advocate's services were engaged and he prepared the requisite petition and affidavit. The affidavit was sworn by the complainant at 6.30 p.m. on Friday, the 13th July, and the compla...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »