Allahabad Court July 1959 Judgments
Balraj Bhalla Vs. Sri Ramesh Chandra Nigam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All157
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Balraj Bhalla for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 25-10-1956 of Sri Ramesh Chandra Nigam, Magistrate First Class, Kanpur, respondent No 1, in criminal case No. 7 of 1954 (State v. R. K. Nigam and Ors.), whereby he directed that the impressions of thumb and toes of the petitioner be taken for purposes of comparison and report by an expert. A request was also made for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 2, namely, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur, to forbear from taking any further steps in the matter of impressions of thumb and toes of the petitioner and to return the aforesaid impressions to the petitioner. There was a third request that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondent No. 1 to refrain from admitting the evidence of impressions of thumb and toes of the petitioner in the aforementioned c...
Tag this Judgment!Shahzad Rai Hira Lal Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1959
Reported in: [1960]11STC689(All)
V. Bhargava, J.1. By this application under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, the applicant prays that this Court should direct the revising authority under the U.P. Sales Tax Act to state a case and refer it to the High Court. The application relates to sales tax assessment proceedings relating to the year 194849. Under Section 11, as it stood at that time, after the revising authority had dismissed the revision, the applicant could require the revising authority to refer any question of law arising out of the revisional order to the High Court within 60 days from the passing of that order. In the present case, it is admitted by the applicant himself that no application was filed by the applicant within 60 days requiring the revising authority to refer any question of law to the High Court. The application, that was made, was presented more than 60 days after the revisional order of the revising authority. The revising authority, in dealing with the application, held that th...
Tag this Judgment!Balraj Bhalla Vs. Ramesh Chandra Nigam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1959
Reported in: 1960CriLJ297
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Balraj Bhalla for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 25-10-1956 of Sri Ramesh Chandra Nigam, Magistrate First Class, Kanpur, respondent No 1, in criminal case No. 7 of 1954 (State v. R, K. Nigam and others), whereby he directed that the impressions of thumb and toes of the petitioner be taken for purposes of comparison and report by an expert. A request was also made for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 2, namely, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur, to forbear from taking any further steps in the matter of impressions of thumb and toes of the petitioner and to return the aforesaid impressions to the petitioner.There was a third request that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondent No, 1 to refrain from admitting the evidence of impressions of thumb and toes of the petitioner in the aforementioned c...
Tag this Judgment!Nadir Ali Barqa Zaidi and ors. Vs. the State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All103; 1960CriLJ188
James, J. 1. Nadir Ali Barq Zaidi, Abdul Hamid Khan, Wajid Ali, Pritam Singh, Shujat Ali Khan Rahher, Tulsi Das and Abdul Majid Khan were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge of Moradabad for offence which fell under three main heads: first, that during the period the l5th June 1952 to the 2nd August 1952 they along with some persons unknown were party to a criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of cheating in the towns of Moradabad and Chandausi and were thereby guilty of an offence punishable under Section 120BI.P.C., second, that in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid they opened a firm entitled 'Bharat Helpers' and by making false statements, misrepresentation of facts, suppression of material particulars and other subtle devices dishonestly and fraudulently induced many members of the public to deliver various sums of money to them, in particular 26 named individuals, and were thereby guilty of an offence under Section 420 I. P. C. and third, that having been entrusted ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Ibrahim Khan Vs. Pateshwari Prasad Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All252
V.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal from order against an order refusing to issue a temporary injunction pending the disposal of a suit. The plaintiff, early in 1951,' brought a suit against Maharaja Sri Pateshwari Prasad Singh, defendant respondent, for a declaration that he was an under-proprietor of certain plots in dispute. On 7-1-1952, an application was moved for injunction praying that during the pendency of the suit the respondent be restrained from alienating the property in dispute.This application was considered by the learned Civil Judge and he, on 12-11-1952, dismissed the application. He held that there was a prima facie case of the plaintiff but he found that there was no likelihood of any irreparable loss and, therefore, the injunction was refused. Aggrieved by that decision the plaintiff filed this appeal against that order.2. During the pendency of this appeal an application was moved in this Court by the appellant for issue of an ad interim injunction pending the d...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Shankar Rai and ors. Vs. Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railw ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All366
V.D. Bhargava, J. 1. This application was referred to a Bench of two Judges by one of us on account of the fact that it was a joint application on behalf of four persons. In the opinion of the referring Judge a writ petition could be filed only by one unless their right was joint and inseparable. In case of a common right it is not open to the persons, who are affected by a common order to file a joint writ application. Since there was no reported decision of this Court on this matter, and since this matter often arises, hence this reference to a Bench. There was necessity of referring this case, particularly on account of certain remarks made in Manindra Nath Pal v. Municipal Commissioners, Baranagore Municipality, (S) AIR 1956 Cal 291 at p. 295. In the opinion of Mr. Justice Sinha in that case it was held that this rule was a highly technical one of procedure, and should not be introduced in our law. In our view, writ jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction and is for the enforcement ...
Tag this Judgment!Mula and anr. Vs. Babu Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All573
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a defendants' second appeal against the decree of the Second Civil Judge, Meerut, confirming a decision of the trial court b'y which the plaintiff-respondents' suit for an, injunction restraining the defendant-appellants from interfering with their possession over the plot of the land in dispute and for a declaration, that he was entitled to receive the sale price of the crop deposited in court was decreed. The facts which have led to this appeal, yery briefly, are these. In the year 1951 there was a dispute between the plaintiff-respondents and the defendant-appellants over a plot of land which led to an apprehension of breach of the peace.Proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. were initiated, and the trying Magistrate attached the land in dispute as well as the standing crop. A supurdar was however appointed by the court and the crop was sold by him for Rs. 700/- and the amount deposited in. court. The plaintiff-respondents were also permitted to cultivate ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Trivikram NaraIn Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Lu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All264; [1961]41ITR150(All)
V. Bhargava, J. 1. The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, for our opinion under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act is :'Whether on a true interpretation of Clause (viii) of Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Indian Income-tax Act the sum of Rs. 36,396/- received by the asses-see as an allowance during the previous year of assessment year 1949-50 is revenue income liable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922,'The facts and circumstances under which this question has arisen and has been referred to this Court have been mentioned by the Tribunal in the statement of the case to which were attached as annexure a number of other documents. For the purpose of stating the facts and circumstances, therefore, we are referring to the statement of the case as well as the various documents which form, part of the statement of the case.2. The assessee in this case is a Hindu undivided family whose karta is Sri Trivikram Narain Singh He is a descendant ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Chandra Bali Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All124; 1960CriLJ203
S.N. Sahai, J. 1. These six appeals are against the order passed by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge of Deoria, acquitting the respondents in each case of an offence punishable under Section 52 of the Prisons Act (Act IX of 1894). Chandrabali Singh is the respondent in Govt. Appeal No. 1599 of 1957 while Brijraj Singh, Raj Kishore, Sardar Ambrik Singh, Krishna Lal and Ugrasen Singh are the respondents in Govt. Appeals Nos. 1600, 1601, 1602, 1603 and 1604 respectively. 2. The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass. The respondents who are members of the Socialist party, were admitted in the district Jail, Deoria, under Section 188 I. P. C. on the 29th September, 1956 at 9.15 a.m. after being sent from the court of Sri G. P. Misra, Magistrate first class, Deoria, as undertrials. The charge against them was that when in jail as undertrials they refused to take food stating that they were on hunger strike from outside. According to the testimony of Sri Badri Prasad Misra, J...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Lal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All223
Mulla, J. 1. Balm Lal appellant has been convicted under Section 302 I. P. Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow. The charge against the appellant was that on 11-1-1958, at about 4.30 P. M. he along with his servant Laltastruck the deceased Ramnath with a scythe with the intention of killing him and thus committed an offence under Section 302/34 I. P. Code. The trial court did not frame the charge properly for in every case where section 34 I. P. Code is applied the court should clearly mention that the crime was committed in furtherance of a common intention. This fact was- not mentioned in the charge framed by the trial court. The trial court acquitted Lalta and gave him the benefit of doubt and convicted the appellant under Section 302 I. P. Code simpliciter.2. As we am criticising the trial court, we may at this very stage observe that we have not been impressed by the reasoning of the trial court when it completely acquitted Lalta, the other ac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »