Allahabad Court December 1959 Judgments
Municipal Board, Almora Vs. Jasod Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All468
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is an appeal by the Municipal Board, Almora against an order of the Deputy Commissioner, Almora sitting as Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act awarding a sum of Rs. 1,260/- as compensation to a workman Jasod Singh who is respondent No. 1 in this appeal and the second respondent being the State of Uttar Pradesh. The facts leading up to this appeal are as follows :2. A project for the electrification of the town of Almora was being executed by the U. P. Government on the material date. The workman Jasod Singh was one of the employees engaged in this work. His duty was to assist in the installation of poles and overhead cables. On 20-11-1950, while working on a pole he fell down and received injuries resulting in his permanent partial disability. He made an application for compensation under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, claiming Rs. 2,520/-. The Municipal Board and the State were made defendants.3. Both of them contested the claim on me...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Nath Dwivedi Vs. District Magistrate, Allahabad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All467; 1960CriLJ1049
Roy, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Prabhakar Nath Dwivedi, President of the Allahabad University Union, praying for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing opposite party No. 2, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Naini, Allahabad, to set the petitioner at liberty at once. The other opposite-party to this petition is the District Magistrate of Allahabad. The facts on which this petition is founded are briefly these. On 12-12-1959 the City Magistrate of Allahabad passed an order under Section 107/112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure saying that whereas it had been made to appear to him by the report of the station officer of police station Colonelganj that due to the situation created by the closure sine die of the University of Allahabad, the petitioner along with others was likely to take out processions, destroy University property, and there was reason to fear the commission of a breach of the peace and disturbance of public tranqui...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Batul Begam Vs. B. Hem Chandar Mukherji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All519
B. Mukerji, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent under Section 148 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. The suit was filed by one of the co-sharers only, i.e. Hem Chandra Mukerji, against Mst. Batool Begum for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of three plots detailed in the plaint. The plaintiff alleged that the plots were the exproprietary tenancy of the defendant, who had Rot possession over the plots after the death of her husband Fida Husain, who was the original sir-holder of the plots.2. The defendant contested the suit and one of her pleas in defence was that the suit could not be decreed, inasmuch as, an area of 83 bighas of Sir appertained to a -/5/2 share of the proprietary interest owned by her predecessor, and that as such she had acquired exproprietary rights in the village and the entire exproprietary tenancy had thereafter became her sir. She further pleaded that the suit was bad for non-joinder of all the co-sharers as required by the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Datta Mal Chiranji Lal Vs. L. Ladli Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All632
B. Upadhya, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for the issue of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from maintaining a flour mill in premises No. 12, Library Bazar Mussoorie and restraining defendant No. 2 from granting a flour mill lience to defendant No. 1 to run a flour mil) in the said premises.2. The plaintiff is the owner of premises No. 11 Library Bazar, Mussoorie which is a three storied building. The upper two storeys are used for residential purposes and the ground floor is used as a shop. It is stated that in 1945 the appellant-defendant established an electric flour mill in premises No. 12 Library Bazar which is adjacent to the plaintiff's house. According to the plaintiff the running of this flour mill amounts to a private nuisance.It causes a lot of noise and vibration so that the plaintiff and the members of his family find it difficult to reside in their house, and it causes great inconvenience and discomfort to them. As the plaintiffs ef...
Tag this Judgment!The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., Delhi Vs. the Regional Pro ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1959
Reported in: AIR1961All309; (1961)IILLJ444All
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd., Delhi (to be referred hereinafter as the petitioner or the petitioner Mill) for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent, namely, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, not to take any steps under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (to be referred hereinafter as the Act) for enforcing the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme (to be referred hereinafter as the Scheme) in respect of the petitioner's distillery and confectionery at Daurala; and also to direct the respondent to withdraw his letter dated 9-3-1957, Annexure 'B' to the affidavit.2. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, and it owns a number of factories including textile mills, sugar factories, distillery and confectionery. In village Daurala of district Meerut, there is a sugar factory belonging to the petitioner known as 'Daurala Su...
Tag this Judgment!Behari Lal Vs. Thakur Radha Ballabh Ji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1961All73
Gurtu, J.1. This is an appeal of Lala Behari Lal the contesting defendant in the suit for recovery of property and mesne profit. The plaintiff is the idol, Sri Thakur Radha Ballabh Ji and sues through Yasodanandan as next friend. The plaint allegation is that house No. 49/54 belonged to the plaintiff. The said house was a partitioned portion of a bigger building of which the other partitioned portion bore No. 49/53. The plaintiff was not the proprietor of house No. 49/53 but he had acquired the mortgagee rights thereof.The partitioned portion No. 49/54 (also referred to as house in this judgment) had been bought by the plaintiff out of the plaintiff's fund by defendant No. 2 Lala Jagannath as Manager and Sarvarakar of the plaintiff. Jagannath Prasad later executed a sale deed dated 13-1-1942 in respect of the partitioned portion No. 49/54, of which the plaintiff was in proprietary possession, in favour of L. Behari Lal the contesting defendant for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- with t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhai Singh Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All369; 1960CriLJ776
O.H. Mootham, C.J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Civil and Sessions Judge, Budaun, dated 15-3-1958, dismissing an appeal from an order of a learned Magistrate convicting the applicant of an offence under Section 19, Clause (f) of the Indian Arms Act, 1878, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The offence was committed in village Palia Danda, and as that village is north of the river Ganga the applicant was prosecuted without the sanction of the District Magistrate. It is common ground that under Section 29 of the Act the sanction of the District Magistrate for the institution of proceedings under Section 19, Clause (f) is not necessary if the offence is committed north of the Ganga, although it is necessary if it be committed south of that river. The applicant contended that the descrimination made in Section 29 between the two classes of offences was unconstitutional, and he relied on Mehar Chand v. State 1959 All LJ 464 : ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sewak Misra Vs. President, Dist. Board, Allahabad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All473
O.H. Mootham, C.J.1. I agree with' the judgment of Raghubar Dayal, J., but as I was a party to the decision in Badri Prasad Rastogi v. President, District Board, Mirzapur, 1952 All LJ 56 : (AIR 1952 All 681), I think it proper to state shortly the reasons which have led me, on further consideration, to the conclusion that that case was not correctly decided.2. Section 90, Sub-section (3) of the U. P. District Boards Act provides that the power of dismissal shall be deemed to include a power to suspend the person against whom the power of dismissal might be exercised. Schedule I to the Act, read with Section 67(1), specifies the powers which (subject to those against which an entry is shown in the third column) shall be exercised by the Board, and not otherwise; and the Schedule includes among .such powers, the power conferred on the Board under Section 71 to dismiss its Secretary, The crucial word (and this I think was overlooked in Badri Prasad Rastogi's case, 1952 All LJ 56 : (AIR 19...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Wahid HussaIn Vs. Maharajkumar Mahmud Hasan Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1961All409
Nigam, J. 1. On 25th August, 1951 Wahid Husain filed an-application under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act (Act X of 1940) in the court of the Civil Judge, Lucknow, praying that the agreement to refer the disputes between the parties contained in the partnership deed dated 18th March, 1947 be ordered to be filed in the court and the court be pleased to nominate an arbitrator for the opposite parties or to appoint an arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties. In the alternative it was prayed that the writings in paragraph 10 of the application be treated as an arbitration agreement and be ordered to be filed in the court and the court be pleased to nominate an arbitrator for opposite party No. 1 to decide the disputes between the parties. 2. The facts alleged in the application are that Wahid Husain applicant and the three opposite parties entered into a partnership for a period of ten years by a registered deed dated 18thMarch, 1947 for trading in motor cars and for...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Nazar Ahmad Vs. Mohd. Tahir Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All540
Desai, J. 1. This is a special appeal from an order of our brother Nigam, rejecting the appellant's oral application made under Rule 6 of Chapter VIII of Rules of Court for a declaration that the case is a fit one for appeal. Our learned brother dictated the judgment in open Court in a second appeal. Subsequently, but before the judgment was transcribed and signed, the appellant made an oral application to our learned brother asking for a declaration that the case was a fit one for appeal. Our learned brother held that he had already delivered the judgment and was consequently functus officio and refused to give the declaration. The appellant files this appeal from the refusal. 2. The appeal is filed as a matter of right and not under a certificate from our learced brother declaring that his refusal to grant the declaration cm the ground given by him is a fit case for appeal. Under Rule 5 of Chap. VIII an appeal lies as a matter of right from the judgment or one Judge, barring certain ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »