Allahabad Court February 1959 Judgments
Sada Shiva and ors. Vs. Mahabir Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All631
N.U. Beg, J.1. This is a special appeal filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated the 19th December, 1956.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by one Gajodhar. This suit was for recovery of an amount of Rs. 600/- on the basis of a simple mortgage deed dated the 13th April, 1931. This mortgage deed was admittedly in favour of three persons, who were the mortgagees under this mortgage. One was Jagannath, who had advanced a sum of Rs. 600/-. The second mortgagee was one Suraj Bali, who had advanced a sum of Rs. 900/-, and the third mortgagee was the plaintiff Gajodhar, who had advanced a sum of Rs. 600/-. The total amount of the principal advanced under the -said mortgage deed thus came to Rs. 2,100/-.The mortgagor in the said mortgage deed was Mahabir, who was defendant No, 1 in the suit. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were the heirs of Suraj Bali. Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 were the heirs of Jagannath, the third mortgagee. The plaintiff's case was t...
Tag this Judgment!MoinuddIn Vs. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, N.R. Rly. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All795
ORDERS.S. Dhawan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the legality of an order of removal passed against the petitioner by the authorities of the Northern Railway. The case of the petitioner, as alleged in his affidavit, is this. He was employed as a Cleaner in the East Indian Railway at Allahabad on 2-2-1948, He claims to have done good work which earned him promotion. In 1955 he was working as II grade Fireman at Allahabad on the Northern Railway, which is the successor' of the old East Indian Railway.The petitioner states that his wife visited Bombay to see some relations and the petitioner applied for a return third class privilege pass for her, which was issued. According to the petitioner, his wife did actually make the journey to Bombay. On the return trip, it is further alleged, she travelled in the company of a gentleman called Moharamad Nurul Huda and his family, who were also travelling in the same train but were travelling in the Second C...
Tag this Judgment!R.J. Singh Vs. the Electric Inspector to the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh at ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All87
ORDERJagdish Sahai, J. 1. The petitioner obtained an A class electrical contractor's licence in the year 1950. It was renewed year after year till the year 1958. The petitioner carried on electric installations in connection with the Shiksha Prasar Pradarshni held by the Education Department of the State as also in the Allahabad Swadeshi Exhibition in the months ofOctober and November 1956. In the Allahabad, Swadeshi Exhibition the 14th of November 1956, was celebrated as the Prime Minister's birthday. There was a programme of fireworks from 9 to 11 p. m. that day. Visitors to the tune of twenty thousand had assembled to witness the fireworks, The petitioner at that time was sitting at his stall. At about 11 p. m. he received information that an old lady had received electric shock and was lying unconscious near about the police station. He rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the lady being taken in a car of the flying squad to the hospital. He enquired from the persons who were ...
Tag this Judgment!Mukat Beharilal Agarwal Vakil Vs. Additional District Magistrate (Exec ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All699
O.H. Mootham, C.J. 1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The applicant, who is a pleader, desires to appeal to this Court from a judgment and decree passed by Mr. Justice Oak dated the 28th April, 1958. The period of limitation for the filing of the appeal was 60 days, and that period expired on the 27th June, 1958. The Court however was then closed for the vacation, and under Section 4 of the Limitation Act the memorandum of appeal could have been presented on the day on which the Court reopened which was the 12th July. The applicant applied for a copy of the decree against which he desired to appeal on the 30th June and for a copy of the judgment on the 4th July, that is to say after the expiry of the period of 60 days but before the end of the vacation. The copy of the judgment was ready on the 4th August, that of the decree on the 21st August. The memorandum of appeal was presented on the 11th September. 2. Prima facie, the memorandum of appeal was...
Tag this Judgment!Mussaddi Lal and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All753; 1959CriLJ1382
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. The applicants were convicted for the offence of Section 16(1)(b) and (c)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by a Judicial Magistrate, first class. The case against them was they sell milk, that on the day of the occurrence a Food Inspector took a sample of milk from them, that they refused to accept the notice given to them by the Inspector in compliance with the provisions of Section 11(1)(a), that they refused to accept one part of the sample given to them by the Food Inspector in compliance with the provisions of Section 11(1)(c)(i). that they refused to accept the price of the sample tendered to them by the Food Inspector in compliance with the provisions of Section 10(3) and that they refused to sign the receipt for the price and the labels put on three bottles in which three portions of the sample were kept.There is sufficient evidence to prove these facts and the findings of fact cannot he challenged in revision. A portion of the sample of the m...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Oil and Ginning Mills, Through Seth Nagar Mal Modi Vs. Commission ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All785; [1959]10STC294(All)
Bhargava, J.1. The Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, U. P. had referred the following two questions for opinion to this Court:'1. Whether Clause (ii) of the Expl. II to Section 2(h) of the U, P. Sales Tax Act is ultra vires the Legislature? 2. Whether in the admitted circumstances of the case, the applicants would be liable to pay tax in respect of the sales of oils and soaps in the year 1948-49 from their depot at Calcutta.' When we heard learned counsel on this reference, our attention was drawn to a number of decisions of the Supreme Court in various cases in which the provisions of the various Sales Tax Acts in India came up for consideration before the Supreme Court. It appears to us that it is not necessary to refer to these cases and that it is sufficient to refer to only a single case in which the Supreme Court has given its latest decision on a point which was identical with the point which arises in the present reference. That decision of the Supreme Court is in Tata Iron and Ste...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Chand Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Agra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All782
O.H. Mootham, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Tandon dated 8-8-1.958. The appellant is the holder of a stage carnage permit under which he is entitled to ply a stage carriage on the Mathura-Etah route. That route is about 72 miles long and in 1947 the number of stage carriages which were permitted to ply on it was four. In 1947 a decision was taken by the Regional Transport Authority to allow nine stage carriages on this route, but it appears that in fact permits were granted only to seven. Then by a resolution dated 6-12-1954 the Regional Transport Authority, Agra, decided to increase the number of stage carriages permitted to ply on this route to eleven. Nothing however was done to implement this resolution until 29-12-1956, when the Regional Transport Authority invited applications for four new stage carriage permits, the granting of which would bring the total number of stage carriages to eleven. This invitation was published in the U. P. Gazette on 5-1-1957....
Tag this Judgment!Ram Padarath Singh Vs. Kishori Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All481
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. It was pleaded on behalf of the applicant that the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sultanpur restoring possession over the plots to the complainant is against the provisions of Section 522, Cr. P. C. on account of there being no evidence of any use, or show, of criminal force and because the order was passed more than a month after the date on which the applicant was convicted. I do not; find any substance in this plea. There is evidence that the applicant dispossessed Kishorilal by force or show of force. A trial Court can pass an order under Section 522, Cr. P. C.; either while convicting the accused or within one month of the date of conviction; an appellate Court can pass such an Order even though more than a month has expired since the, conviction. The power conferred by Sub-section (3) upon, an appellate Court is same as the power conferred upon a trial Court by Sub-section (1), but the limitation imposed by Sub-section (1) on the exercise of the power b...
Tag this Judgment!Tika Ram Vs. Maheshwari DIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All659
R. Dayal, J. 1. Original suit No. 81 of 1955 for partition and possession was instituted in the court of Munsif Hamirpur on 16-2-1955. One of the issues framed in the .suit was : 'whether the plaintiff is co-sirdar of the land in suit along with defendants 1 and 2?' On 24-11-1956 this issue was remitted to the Collector Jalaun for a finding in view of the provisions of Section 332-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950, as amended by Section 19 of the U. P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act (XVIII of 1956). 2. The Collector Jalaun transferred the case for disposal to the court of Sri Nem Chandra Jain, Assistant Collector, First Class. On 28-6-1957 Sri Jain returned the record without any finding on the issue referred to the court of the Munsif holding that the reference was without jurisdiction and any decision of the issue by him would be without jurisdiction. 3. The Munsif Hamirpur thereafter made this reference to this court under Section 113 C. P. C. 4. When this r...
Tag this Judgment!Lalloomal Dalal Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kanpur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All775; [1959]36ITR397(All)
V. Bhargava, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash a notice of demand dated 25-3-1958, which included the demand for a sum of Rs. 7265-11-0 levied upon the petitioner by way of interest under Section 18A(6) of the Income-tax Act. This demand is challenged on two grounds: The first ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner was that initially the notice of demand for payment of advance income-tax under Section 18A(1) of the Act was void in law because the demand in that notice was based on the last completed assessment of the assessee but in that demand his income from two firms of which he was a partner was taken to be the same as had been included in his last completed assessment and there was no substitution for that amount of the share of his income as calculated on the basis of subsequent completed assessments of those firms.This ground clearly fails for three reasons. The first reason is...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »