Allahabad Court September 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.
Ahmad Ullah Vs. Hafizullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1961All173
ORDERV.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision. Originally it was filed as a second appeal, but a learned brother of mine came to the conclusion that no appeal lay. He, however permitted this appeal to be treated as a revision and, therefore, it is -being decided as a revision.2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the opposite party that no revision lies to this Court against an order refusing to record an award and reliance was placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gobind Das v. Mt. Indrawati : AIR1938All557 .3. Before I deal with the preliminary objection certain facts are necessary. It appears that there was a criminal case pending under Ss. 147/352 and 504, I. P. C. read with Section 106, Cr. P. C. for a long time. Some other disputes about cattle trough, door, nabdan, neeb tree, Nesuba etc. also arose between the parties. The parties by an agreement dated 8th February, 1950 referred their disputes to arbitration of...
NaraIn Parsad and anr. Vs. Banarsi Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All372
V.D. Bhargava, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 6-A of the Court Fees Act.2. The defendant-appellants filed an appeal in the court of the District Judge, Bulandshanr. Therewas an office report to the effect that there was a deficiency in the court-fee paid. The matter came up before the District Judge for consideration and on 31-3-1951 he held that the court-fee paid was sufficient. At that stage the plaintiff respondent had not put any appearance and that order was passed only after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants. On 13-11-1952, an application was filed by the plaintiff respondent that there was a deficiency in the court-fee paid by the appellants and the appeal was not properly valued. Two questions, therefore, arose before the court below.(1) Whether the objection of the respondent could be heard after the order dated 31-3-1951 of the learned District Judge, and (2). Whether in fact there was a deficiency in the court-fee paid and whether the memorandum of appe...
The General Manager, G.i.P. Railway, Bombay Vs. Mst. Kiran Devi and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All371
Gurtu, J.1. By virtue of Section 47(1)(f) of the Indian Railways Act, Act No. IX of 1890, as in force in 1946, every Railway Company and, in the case of a Railway administered by the Government, an officer to be appointed by the Central Government, in this behalf was empowered to make general rules consistent with the Act for, inter alia, regulating the terms and conditions on which the railway administration would warehouse or retain goods at any station on behalf of the consignee or owner,2. By Section 47, Sub-section (3) of the same Act a rule made under Section 47 (1) would not take effect until it had received the sanction of the Central Government and had been published in the Gazette of India.3. A rule was made under the above indicated power fixing warehousing charges at one anna per mound. Then subsequently the charge was increased to 3 annas per maund. The rule increasing the rate to 3 annas was not published in the Gazette of India and there is nothing to show that that rule...
Aligarh District Wholesale Cloth Dealers' Syndicate Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All475; [1960]40ITR481(All)
V. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application under Section 66(3) of the Income-tax Act by an applicant whose application under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act has been rejected by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Admittedly, the last date for making the application under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act to the Tribunal was 11-3-1953. The applicant sent his application by registered post on 11-3-1953, and, according to the affidavit filed by the applicant, the registered cover containing the application was delivered to the Tribunal on 12-3-1953. The actual receipt of the application by the Tribunal was thus after the period of limitation had expired.The question is whether the mere fact that the applicant had despatched the application by registered post on 11-3-1953, when the limitation had not expired, means that the application had been made to the Tribunal within the time allowed. Rule 7 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946, ha...
Babu Lal and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All290; [1962(5)FLR486]
Roy, J. 1. This is an appeal by Babu Lal, Rameshwar and Ram Chand who have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Agra under Sections 302/34, 324/34 and 323/34 I. P. C. and each sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302/34, to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 324/34 and to six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 I. P. C., the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The case for the prosecution as set out in the first information report made by Natha P. W. 1 supported by the oral testimony of the witnesses was as follows: On the morning of 22-9-1957 Ramvir son of Natha was returning from Tundla. Ram Chand accused met him near the Dharamshala of Pokhpal, He asked Ramvir to give him the cane which he had with him. Ramvir refused to part with his cane. Ram Chand then slapped him. Ramvir went home and some time later in the day told his father Natha and his grand father Bharat Singh as to what had happened. Natha and Bharat Singh went along with Ra...
Mohd. Hanif Khan Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All434
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act for contravention of Rule 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948. He was born in British India and his parents were residents of British India. He was employed in the Indian Army awd after the partition of India, hewent to Karachi with his platoon; He resigned from the Army in 1948 and came to India under a passport obtained as a Pakistani national in 1954. Under the visa he was entitled to stay in India up to 20-8-1954. He did not depart from India for Pakistan on or before 20-8-1954 and has been convicted by the courts below under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act for the alleged contravention of Rule 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948.2. under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, a person is punished for contravening the provisions of the Act or of any Order made thereunder. The Foreigners Order, 1948 was made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Act. Rule 7 o...
Jairam Singh and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1959
Reported in: AIR1962All350
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J.1. This order governs Civil Misc. Writ Nos. 412 and 413 of 1957 by Jai Ram Singh, and Dharambir Singh and two others, respectively. As the facts of the two cases are virtually the same and similar questions of law are involved in both, they are being decided by one judgment. The request made in both the cases was for the issue of a writ of certiorari, or an order or direction in the nature of certiorari, to quash an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Nainital, respondent No. 2, who was a competent authority under the U. P. Government Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1953 (Act No. 29 of 1953) for the ejectment of the petitioners from the Government land.2. The facts of both the cases were disputed by the respondents, the State of Uttar Pradesh and lhe Additional District Magistrate, Nainital, in their counter-affidavit, but for Purposes of the present cases, the facts as emerge out cannot be deemed to bo in dispute. These facts, in brief, are t...
Sunder Lal Vs. Ram Krishan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All544
S.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is an appeal against a decree for ejectment and arrears of rent. The appellant Sunder Lal was the tenant of a house in Farrukhabad. He fell into arrears of rent and the landlord sent him a notice demanding Rs. 175/-as rent. He disputed this amount and replied that only Rs. 135/- was due from him as the landlord owed him a sum of Rs. 40/- as costs awarded in some suit. He stated in his reply that he was remitting Rs. 135/- in full settlement after adjusting the sum of Rs. 40/-. His letter made it clear that after this payment the rent would be deemed to be fully paid.The same statement was made in the coupon attached to the money order. The landlord accepted the money order for Rs. 135/-, and sent a further notice denying the appellant's right to adjust Rs. 40/- and demanded the balance of the rent which by that time had increased to Rs. 55/-. He also asked the appellant to vacate the house within one month and warned him that he would take legal proceedings if h...
Dominion of India Vs. Purshottam Das Brijnandan Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1959
Reported in: AIR1961All176
B. Upadhya, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for the recovery of damages for non-delivery of goods which had been booked from a station on the defendant railway,2. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 2386/7/6 for nondelivery of their consignments said to have been booked from Gorakhpur for Banaras Cantt. Theseconsignments were never delivered, and after sending notices under Section 77 of the Railways Act and Section 80 C. P. C. the suit was filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of the loss sustained because of the non-delivery and for recovery of the price of goods andother expenses incurred in sending the consignments. Among the pleas raised in defence was a plea that the notice under Section 80 C. P. C. was not valid. Thetrial court took the view that the notice was not valid and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court reversed the decision and decreed the plaintiff's suit.3. The notice in question is Ex. A-1 dated 8-8-1948. It was addressed to the Governor-Gene...
Raj Kishan Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All460; 1960CriLJ1046
ORDERM.C. Desai, J. 1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 18(a)(i) and (ii) of the Drugs Act. A Municipal Medical Officer of Health took a sample; of a medicine called Gripex on 10-11-1955 from the shop of the applicant and sent it for analysis. The Government Analyst after analysis gave has report on the prescribed form that it was substandard but did not give the protocols of the test applied by him. The report was received in evidence against the applicant and on its basis he has been convicted. The Government analyst himself was not examined as a witness to prove the tests applied by him.2. On the date on which the Municipal Medical Officer of Health took the sample, the Drugs Act of 1940 stood amended by the Act of 1955. Section 21 of the Act as it stands now empowers a State Government to appoint such persons, as it thinks fit 'having the prescribed qualifications, to be Inspectors for the purposes of this Chapter within such local limits as it may assign to them resp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›