Allahabad Court January 1960 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.
Dhruva Malviya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All421
ORDERJ.K. Tandon, J.1. The petitioner who was serving as temporary Deputy Director of Panchayats in the Panchayat Raj Department under the State of U. P. was served a notice dated February 28, 1959 by the Deputy Secretary to Government in that department intimating to him that his services shall stand terminated on the expiry of the period of one month from the date of receipt of the above notice. This notice which, therefore, was delivered to him on 28th February, 1959 resulted in terminating his employment on the expiry of 31st March, 1959.Earlier also on 27th January, 1959 a similar notice had been delivered to him by the Deputy Secretary Panchayat Raj Department wherefore his services were sought to be put an end to evidently from 28th of February, 1959 but, as it seems, this was subsequently superseded by the notice first above mentioned. The petitioner, who is questioning the right of the State Government to put an end to his employment in this manner, has asked the two notices t...
Smt. Rabia Bibi and ors. Vs. Smt. Mohammadi Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1960All515
Desai, J.1. The question raised by the appellants in this appeal is whether the application for execution of a decree passed against them was barred by time or not.2. The decree was for money and was passed against the appellants and in favour of the respondent on 15-4-1947, and was amended on 2-8-1947. The appellants applied On 21-7-1948 for leave to appeal from it as paupers but their application was dismissed! and they paid the Court-fee on the memorandum of appeal on 3-11-1948, whereupon the appeal was admitted and a notice of it was given to the respondent. On 3-11-1952 it was dismissed for want of prosecution because translation and printing charges were not deposited by the appellants within the time allowed.On 17-10-1955 the respondent applied for execution of the decree and the appellants challenged its maintainability on the ground that it was barred by time. The appellants computed the period of three years limitation from 2-8-1947 while the respondent contended that it was ...
Laxmi Shanker Yadav Vs. Kuawar Shripal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1960All548
J.N. Takru, J.1. This petition by Lakshmi Shanker Yadav under Article 133 of the Constitution prays for the grant of a certificate of fitness to file an appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment and decree of this Court dated 15-5-1959 passed in First Appeal No. 374 of 1958. The facts giving rise to it are as follows:2. The petitioner and the opposite parties were candidates for election to the U. P. Legislative Assembly from the Shahganj Constituency No. 200 in the District of Jaunpur. The constituency was a double-member constituency in which one seat was reserved for a candidate of the scheduled caste. The petitioner, the first opposite-party, and some others were candidates for the general seat.At the election the first respondent having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from the general constituency. Thereupon the petitioner preferred an electipn petition to the Election Commission and that Commission in due course appointed the District Judge, Jaunpu...
Chhail Behari Lal and ors. Vs. Phool Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All308
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application under Section 115, C. P. C. against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Aligarh rejecting their application to sue in forma pauperis. The plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration that certain mortgage deeds executed by their ancestors were not for legal necessity and invalid and also for cancellation of the decrees obtained by the defendants on the basis of the impugned mortgages. There was also a prayer for an injunction restraining the defedants from taking possession of the plaintiff's property.The plaintiffs made an application, under Order 33, Rule 1, C. P. C., for permission to institute the suit as paupers. They alleged that they were not possessed of sufficient means to enable them to pay the prescribed court-fee Notice was issued to the Government Pleader and to the defendants. After hearing the evidence of the plaintiffs and the first defendant, the learned Civil Judge took the view that the plaintiffs are possessed o...
Khacheru Singh Vs. S.D.O. Khurja
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1960All462
Mootham, C.J. 1. This Bench has been constituted under Section 5 of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act) to determine the court-fee payable on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. A petition under this Article was presented to the Court on which a court-fee of Rs. 5/- had been paid. That fee was considered insufficient by the Taxing Officer who was of opinion that as a consequence of the amendment made in the principal Act by the U. P. Court-fees (Second Amendment) Act, 1958 (U. P. Act XLIV of 1958) and the Court-fees (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Ordinance, 1959 (U. P. Ordinance II of 1959) the proper fee was Rs. 50/-. The Ordinance has now been replaced by the Court-fees (Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act, 1959 (U. P. Act X of 1959) and the provisions of the principal Act so amended which call for consideration are Section 4 and Clause (e) of Article 1 of Schedule II. These provisions, so far as they are material, read as follows: 'Section 4. No ...
Radhey Shyam and ors. Vs. Puttoo Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All87
S.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is plaintiffs' appeal against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Hamirpur, rejecting his application for restoration of their suit which had previously been dismissed for default. The plaintiffs Radhey Shyam and others filed a suit against the defendants Puttu Lal and others asserting their interest in some property and for rendition of accounts. The suit was dissmised for default. On an application by the plaintiffs, it was restored by the court by its order dated 17-7-1953 subject to payment of Rs, 70/- to the defendants as costs by 27-7-1953. 2. Learned counsel for both the parties said that the sequence of the events after the passing of the order was thus. The plaintiff went back to Farrukhabad where he is resident and remitted by money order a sum of Rs. 70/' to the defendants' counsel on 24-7-1953, On the same date he sent a letter to the Court that he had made the remittance. The letter reached the Court on. the 25th but the remittance did not arrive t...
Mst. Kalawati Vs. B. Ratan Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1960
Reported in: AIR1960All601
S.N. Dwivedi, J. 1. Shrimati Kalawati instituted a suit against her husband, Ratanchand, for past and future maintenance on the allegation that he has married again. He admitted his second marriage with Shrimati Chameli in 1935 but disclaimed his liability. The trial Court decreed the claim only for future maintenance at Rs. 25 per mensem in view of the Hindu Married Women's Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, 1946.Ratanchand also lost in the lower appellate Court, and he then filed a second appeal in this Court. His principal submission that the plaintiff could not get the benefit of the said Act because he had remarried before its commencement found favour with the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Judge the plaintiff preferred the present appeal on the ground that the learned Judge's view was erroneous. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has however asked us to permit him to abandon that ground of attack,...
Smt. Bhagwan Dei Vs. Firm Het Ram Sureshchandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1960
Reported in: AIR1960All688
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal underSection 6A of the U. P. Court-Fees Act against an order of the Additional Civil Judge, Jhansi directing her to pay an additional court fee of Rs. 408/12/- on her suit for a declaration that her house is not liable to attachment in a suit pending before another court. The plaintiff appellant Smt. Bhagwan Dei is the wife of Kidar Nath. A suit was filed (the plaintiff's name is immaterial) against the firm of which Hetram was one of the partners. He and all the other partners were impleaded as co-defendants. The plaintiff in that suit obtained attachment before judgment of a certain house alleging that it belonged to Kidar Nath. His wife, Smt. Bhagwan Dei, filed an objection that the house belonged to her and that her husband had nothing to do with it.It appears that, due to the neglect of her pairokar in reaching the court in time, her objection was dismissed for default. She then filed the present suit in which she prayed for a declara...
Naresh Prasad Mittal Vs. Mahavir Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1960All507; 1960CriLJ1058
ORDERBishambhar Dayal, J. 1. This is an appeal against 311 order of acquittal passed by the Additional District Magistrate of Bijnor dated 29-9-1958. The facts which have led to this order may be shortly stated as follows. Appellant Naresh Prasad filed a complaint against the respondent Mahabir Prasad under Sections 342 and 166 I. P. C. which was pending before a Magistrate. The complainant made a further application claiming that the facts disclosed an offence under Section 320 I. P. C, and that the procedure for an enquiry should be followed in the case, as it was a case triable by the Court of Session. This application was made on 23-9-1958. It was rejected by the learned Magistrate. A revision against this order was filed before the Sessions Judge. TheSessions Judge while admitting the revision passed the following order, 'Stay pending revision' on26-9-1958. 2. After this order had been passed by the leaped Sessions Judge, the case came up for hearing before the Magistrate on 29-9-...
Gur Dayal and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1960All564
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by Gur Dayal and 41 others for the issue of a writ of mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to restrain the respondents, namely, the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Administrator, Municipal Board, Lucknow, and the Land Acquisition Officer, Lucknow Improvement Trust, Lucknow, from continuing the proceeding for the acquisition of houses and land mentioned in the notices purporting to be under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and to quash the orders under which these notices were issued.2. In view of a few material questions involved in the case which are favourable to the petitioners it is not necessary to refer to all the facts which have been given by the parties in their affidavits, nor is it necessary to make a reference to the various documents annexed by them to their affidavits. For example, it is not necessary to express any opinion as to whether ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »