Allahabad Court September 1959 Judgments
Gai Chhap Biri Depot and anr. Vs. District Board, Azamgarh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All382
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution' of India by Messrs. Gai Chhap Biri Depot through Shiyam Sunder Agrawal, and also by Shiyam Sunder Agrawal in his personal capacity, for the issue of a writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction, to quash the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Azamgarh, respondent No. 2, whereby the appeal against the assessment of circumstances and property tax on the petitioners was in substance dismissed. A request was also made that the taxes already paid by the petitioners be ordered to be refunded to them.2. Shiyam Sunder Agrawal is one of the four proprietors of an unregistered firm by the name of Gai Chhap Biri Depot at Belasia, Azamgarh. The District Board of Azamgarh, respondent No. 1, had assessed circumstances and property tax amounting to Rs. 150/- on the firm Gai Chhap Biri Depot for the year 1953-54 and raised the assessment to Rs. 500/- per year for the years 1954-55 and 1955-56. The...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Khair Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All228
ORDERJ.K. Tandon, J.1. The petitioner is a transport operator who possessed three public carrier permits in 1948 for Basti-Bahraich route which travelled via Faizabad. He possessed another permit for Basti-Tanda route which again travelled via Faizabad. Ajodhia is one of the towns through which these routes travel; a part of the route thus lies between Ajodhia and Faizabad. These permits when they were granted were not treated by the Department to be permits for inter-regional routes; they were, on the other hand, assumed to lie within one and the same region, i.e. Gorakhpur region.The necessary permit fee also was charged on that basis. After these permits expired in 1950 the Chief Inspector of Offices discovered, in the course of one of his inspections in 1951, that the above two routes were inter-regional routes as the portion of the routes between Ajodhia and Faizabad existed in the Allahabad region though the rest existed in the Gorakhpur region. According to Rule 55 of the U. P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Juggilal Kamlapat Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Uttar Pradesh and Vi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1959
Reported in: [1961]41ITR257(All)
BHARGAVA, J. - Applications Nos. 233, 240 and 243 of 1953 purport to be applications under section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act. They relate to appellate orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in appeals arising out of proceedings for assessment of excess profits tax for the three chargeable accounting periods ending on December 31, 1940, December 31, 1941, and December 31, 1942, respectively. The other three connected Applications Nos. 234, 241 and 242 of 1953 are applications under section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act and they are directed against appellate orders of the Tribunal passed in proceedings arising out of assessment of the applicant for the assessment years 1941-42, 1942-43 and 1943-44, the relevant previous years being concurrent with the chargeable accounting periods mentioned above. After the decision of all the six appeal which came up before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal applications were moved before the Tribunal under section 66 (1) of the Income...
Tag this Judgment!Ramzani Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All350; 1960CriLJ774
ORDERM.C. Desai, J. 1. The applicant in this application challenges the validity of an order passed by Sri Ram Kumar, a Magistrate, first class, Muzaffarnagar, directing a complaint to be made against him for an offence of Section 211, I. P. C. He had on 12-6-1950 filed a complaint against one Hukum Chand, Lekh-pal, for an offence of Section 218, I.P.C.; it was dismissed by a first class Magistrate, Sri Lalta Prasad, on 30-5-1951. Thereupon Hukum Chand applied to the Magistrate (Sri Lalta Prasad) for starting proceedings under Section 476, Cr. P. C. against the applicant for making a false complaint against him. The court, over which Sri Lalta Prasad presided, was abolished and the proceedings under Section 476, Cr. P. C. were transferred to another first class Magistrate, Sri Bhudeo Gupta. On 31-7-1952 Sri Bhudeo Gupta ordered a complaint to be made against the applicant for the offence of Section 211, I.P.C. committed by making the complaint against Hukum Chand falsely. The applicant...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Jogendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All505
ORDERJ.K. Tandon, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Naib Tahsildar in 1937. He worked at several placesand ultimately rose to the rank of a Deputy Collector in which capacity he officiated at Azamgarh and Unnao till September, 1948. There were complaints against his work while he was Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Unnao. This once led to his reversion to his substantive post of Tahsildar on 18-9-1948. Alhough, the petitioner has so claimed, he was exonerated subsequently on the charges levelled against him after an inquiry by the Criminal Investigation Department his reversion on the post of Tahsildar continued. 2. In December, 1948, he, therefore, tookover charge as Tahsildar at Sikandera Rao in thedistrict of Aligarh. As, however, further complaints were made against him, fresh charges were delivered to him in connection with his work at Sikandera Rao. He was also placed under suspension on 4-8-1952. The Government apparently because the petitioner as a Tahsildar was a gazetted offic...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Raja Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All588
ORDERV.D. Bhargava, J. 1. There are two objections by the office in the present case.2. The appeal was filed in the year 1954 by Mr. B. N. Roy who was one of the Standing Counsel. Later on the Standing Counsel was changed by the Government and no memorandum of appearance has been filed by the new .Standing Counsel. An objection was raised by the office and the Standing Counsel was permitted to file his power on behalf of the appellant, which was the State, on 28-7-1949. As no action has been taken by the Standing Counsel to file the power on behalf of the appellant, the matter has been put up before me.3. Learned counsel for the State has taken two objections. Firstly, his contention is that if at any time any Standing Counsel has appeared it is no longer necessary thereafter for his successor in office to file a vakalatnama or memorandum of appearance. His argument was that he appears in a case by virtue of his being a Standing Counsel, and whosoever he may be, he will be deemed to be...
Tag this Judgment!Wahid Mian Hiddan Mian Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1961All111; 1961CriLJ206
ORDERM.C. Desai, J. 1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, for the act of not departing from India before the expiry of the period mentioned in his visa and extended by the District Magistrate, Rampur. 2. The applicant was a resident of Rampur. He went from India to Pakistan, though it is not known when, and whether before, or after, 26-1-1950. It may be conceded that he was an Indian national before he went to Pakistan, On 19-7-1955 he obtained a passport for India as a Pakistani national and on 7-2-1957 he obtained from the High Commissioner for India at Karachi a visa permitting him to stay in India for three months. He came from Pakistan to India on 15-2-1957 and according to the period mentioned in the visa he was bound to depart from India on or before 14-5-1957. This period was extended by the District Magistrate, Rampur, through an endorsement on the visa itself, by one month; so he became liable to depart from India on or before 14-6-...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Supdt., Northern Rly., Moradabad Vs. Umrao
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All283
V.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Act VIII of 1923) by the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Moradabad, against the order, of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Lucknow, awarding a compensation of Rs. 1008/- in favour of Umrao against the appellant.2. The facts of the case are that Umrao respondent was employed in the Northern Railway as a 'Gateman' at the Railway Crossing gate No. 218 near Jalalpur. On 4-9-53 in the night, when he was at his quarters, he along with others was attacked by the dacoits, who had come to loot the wagons and he sustained injuries on the left hand and right eye. He, therefore, claimed that he got these injuries in the course of his employment and arising out of it and, therefore, he was entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.3. The defence inter alia, of the appellant was that he had no information about this occurrence, that the respondent was on sick leave ...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Ice Factory Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1959
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ695All
J.K. Tandon, J.1. A dispute having arisen between the petitioner-factory on the one hand, and respondents 4 to 13, on the other, the State Government by an order dated 10 February 1956 passed under Sections 3, 4 and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following matters of dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal at Allahabad :-MATTERS OF DISPUTE(1) Whether the employers of the two concerns mentioned in the annexure A have wrongfully and/or unjustifiably reduced wages of their workmen mentioned in annexure B from January 1955 If so, to what relief are the workmen entitled ?(2) What should be the minimum wage of workmen employed in the two concerns mentioned in annexure A ?2. A similar dispute also arose between the Lakshmi Ice Factory, Lucknow, and its workmen which likewise was referred to the same tribunal by an order of even date by the State Government. Civil Miscellaneous Application (O.J.) No. 15 of 1957, which has been heard along with th...
Tag this Judgment!Shubrati Khan Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All394; 1960CriLJ865
ORDERM.C. Desai, J. 1. The applicant is being prosecuted under the Motor Vehicles Act on a police report. The report contains the names of two witnesses to be examined for the prosecution; this is in compliance with Section 204 (1-A) which requires a list of witnesses. A summons was issued against the applicant and he appeared before the court and pleaded not guilty. The court started trial following the procedure prescribed in Sections 241 etc. Three witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the two mentioned in the report. The prosecution then applied for an adjournment to examine some more witnesses and in spite of the applicant's protest, the court has issued summonses against them. The applicant challenges the court's order on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to issue summonses against witnesses whose names were not to be found in the list given under Section 204 (1-A). I do not find any force in the contention. 2. The power of a Magistrate to summon witnes...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »