Allahabad Court August 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.
Deoman Upadhyaya Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All1; 1960CriLJ1
Desai, J. 1. I respectfully dissent from the view taken by my learned brothers that Section 27, Evidence Act, and Section 162(2), Cr. P. C. are void on account of denying equality before the law guaranteed by the Article 14 of the Constitution.2. Admission is defined in Section 17 of the Evidence Act to mean a statement suggesting any inference as to any act in issue of relevant fact made by a party to a proceeding, such as an accused. Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person making them, vide Section 21. A confession is a specie of an admission of an accused; it is an acknowledgment in express words of the truth of the guilty fact charged; Wigmore on Evidence, Volume III, third edition, paragraph 821. In other words it is admission of all the facts in issue and Consists expressly or impliedly of as many admissions as there are facts in issue. In Pakala Naravana Swami v. King Emperor Lord Atkin observed at page 81 (of Ind App): fat p. 52 of AIR)'A confession must...
Krishna Lal Dalela Vs. Director of Education, U.P., Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1961All315; [1960(1)FLR516]; (1960)ILLJ286All
Dhavan, J.1. This is a special appeal against an order of Jagdish Sahai, J., rejecting the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The facts which, led to the filing of that petition, as alleged by the petitioner in his affidavit, were these:2. The petitioner was appointed a clerk in the office of the Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh, in 1936, In 1948 he was sent on deputation to the Secretariat in a superior scale, but was reverted in due course. In 1953 the Director of Education selected several persons for the posts of Incharge and Assistant In-charge. The petitioner was considered for this post and was called for interview, but he was not selected.He made enquiries and was informed that he had not been selected because the departmental selection committee had not considered him fit for the post. In 1957 another vacancy occurred and the petitioner pressed his claim, but his representation or application was rejected. Aggrieved by the decision of the Governmen...
Sipahi Lal Vs. Section Officer, G.R.P.E. Section and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1959
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ285All
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a special appeal against an order of Jagdish Sahai, J., rejecting the appellant's writ petition directed against the decision of the Government refusing him full pay or allowances for the period when he was under suspension. The facts leading to the filing of that petition were these:2. It appears that the appellant was prosecuted for a criminal offence and convicted. On appeal the High Court set aside the conviction. In the concluding portion of the Judgment the Court observed:. There is an element of reasonable -doubt regarding the guilt of the present accused, and the benefit of that doubt must foe extended to him. Under the circumstances I allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant.After his acquittal the appellant was reinstated in service but was not given full pay and allowances for his period of suspension. The Assistant Inspector-General of Police sanctioned pay on the basis that the petitioner would be deemed on leave fo...
Seth Shambhu Nath Vs. Sm. Surja Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1961All180
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is an application against an order of Sri Murtaza Husain, Civil Judge, Shahjahanpur, rejecting the applicant's objections against an award made by an arbitrator, and pronouncing judgment in terms of that award. The facts which have led to this appeal are these. The applicant Seth Shambhu Nath and the respondent Smt. Surja Devi belonged to the same family and appear to have been joint at one time. There was a partition of the joint family property as a result of which one shop, the property in dispute, is alleged to have been allotted to the respondent Smt. Surja Devi.In May 1949, the applicant Shambhu Nath occupied the shop, presumably claiming ownership. This naturally led to a dispute between him and Smt. Surja Devi. The prospect of litigation between two members of the same family was unpleasant for both of them and they agreed to have the dispute settled by arbitration. A Government official, Sri Bhagwati Prasad Singh, the then Addl. District Magistrate, Sita...
State Vs. Kamlesh Hari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All458; 1960CriLJ1044
V.D. Bhakgava, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution against our judgment by which we had dismissed the appeal of the State against the acquittalof the opposite parties, Kamlesh Hari and Kunwar Singh.2. Kunwar Singh, Suresh and Kamlesh Hari were prosecuted inter alia, under Sections 120-B and 396 I. P.C. arid under Section 302 I. P. C. for having criminally conspired with two other persons, namely, Prakash and Imam Ali deceased to commit the offence of theft by house breaking; to commit dacoity with murder of Ganga Saran and obtaining the key of Pyarey Lal's house from Ganga Saran at the Kothri of Khan; and to commit abduction of Ganga Saran for murdering him and for having committed the dacoity along with Prakash and Khan on the 29th of November, 1956, by taking the key, wrist watch and gold ring from Ganga Saran in the Kothri of Khan and in the commission of that dacoity committed the murder of Ganga Saran.3. ...
Dwarka Dass Vs. Bhawani Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All510
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Bareilly rejecting his objections under Order XXI Rule 90 C. P. C. against the sale of his property in execution of a decree and confirming the sale.2. Mr. Singh, who argued the case for the appellant with ability, raised several contentions against the validity of the proclamation of sale which was made under Order XXI Rule 66 C. P. C. First, he stated that the value of the property had not been mentioned in the proclamation and urged that this is a material irregularity. But Order XXI, Rule 66, does not enjoin that the value of the property should be specified in the proclamation. Clause (e) of sub-Rule (2) requires that the proclamation shall specify 'every other thing which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge of the nature and value of the property.' The language of this clause shows that the Court is not required to specify the value of the pro...
Deo Prayag Singh Vs. Uttar Pradesh Government
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1961All145
Gurtu, J. 1. This is a first appeal from the judgment and decree of Sri Jagmohan Lal, Civil Judge,. Gorakhpur dated the 4th of April, 1952. By that judgment the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed upon the ground that it was barred by Section 233(m) of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. The question of the bar of section 233(m) has been disposed of as a preliminary issue. 2. Before we deal with the contentions advanced before us it is necessary to refer to the plaint The plaint alleged that the plaintiff was a Zamindar and an Advocate but his activities were confined to looking after his zamindari only, that there was one Sri Kishan Saran Chand, father of Sri Bhagwat Chand, that the former took a contract of the Gorakhpur Birdghat ferry from the P. W. D., Gorakhpur for a period of three years beginning from the 15th of April, 1948 to the 14th of April, 1951, that the lease amount of the said contract was Rs. 2,45,555/-, that Sri Kishan Saran' Chand died and his son, Sri Bhagwat Chand, succeed...
Uttar Pradesh State Vs. Shib Saran Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All360
Gurtu, J. 1. This is a first appeal from order by the State of Uttar Pradesh.2. It appears that a suit was filed against the Uttar Pradesh Government by one Shib Saran Agarwal. That suit was decreed ex parte. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree and for restoring the suit was made by the Uttar Pradesh Government. The application was made beyond 90 days of the date of the decree, which is the period of limitation for making an application to set aside an ex parte decree. But the applicant made an allegation of fraud against himself by the opposite party and thus tried to save limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The learned court below went into the question of fraud and gave a finding that no fraud had been proved. It, therefore, held that the restoration application was barred by limitation and had to be dismissed.3. Learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh tried to argue before us, without much conviction, that fraud had been established. But, for ...
Monoharlal Vs. Sri Prem Shankar Tandon and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All231; 1960CriLJ442
V.D. Bhargava, J. 1. This is an application for taking proceedings for contempt of court. The application purported to be under Sections 2 and 3 of Act XII of 1926 which actually has been repealed and replaced by Act XXXII of 1952.2. The facts of the case are that there was one Munshi Ram Sewak who died on 3-5-1910, He was succeeded by his widow Srimati Sukhraj Kuer who was recorded in the khewat as his successor. She adopted Satgur Prasad, opposite party No. 5, as a son to her husband and on 5th November, 1919, executed a deed of adoption in his favour. After the execution of this deed Satgur Prasad was recorded in the khewat in the year 1920. Manohar Lal (applicant No. 1), Manna Lal, Bachchu Lal, Ganga Prasad and Raj Narain who were the next reversioners of Munshi Ram Sewak considered the adoption of Satgur Prasad as illegal and prejudicial to their interests and, therefore, they brought a suit No. 103 of 1925 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Rae Bareli, inter alia, against Srimati S...
Rama Shanker Misra and Brothers Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Kanp ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All247
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Messrs. Rama Shanker Misra and Brothers of Kanpur for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Resolution No. 11(e) dated 1-11-1956 of the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur, respondent No. 1, cancelling permanent permit No. 374 for Mahoha Rajnagar route which had been granted to the petitioner and had once been renewed. A request was also made for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the respondents, namely, the above Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority, Lucknow, respondent No, 2, not to interfere with the petitioner's right of running his stage carriage permit on Mahoba-Rajnagar route under the above permit in accordance with the law.2. During the pendency of the present writ petition, Ahmad Husain, respondent No, 3, applied for being added as a co-respondent, The application was opposed by the petitioner, but was allowed. Ahmad...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »