Allahabad Court December 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.
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1962All77
ORDERJ.K. Tandon, J.1. The above petition which is under Article 226 of the Constitution raises an important question of law as to the true meaning and scope of the term 'wages' defined in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and consequently as to the scope of Section 15 of the said Act under which the authority empowered therein can direct the payment of what has been claimed to be in this case delayed wages. It will be necessary at the very outset to state certain facts peculiar to the case.2. The petitioner is a sugar undertaking owing its mills in the town of Meerut. The respondents, who are twenty-eight in number, besides the authority which made the order under Section 15 of the Act, are some of the seasonal labourers who happened to be employed in the petitioner's mills season after season during the last few years. The fact is not disputed that these respondents are seasonal workmen. The Standing Orders governing the conditions of employment of workmen in Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories...
Maharaj Singh Vs. Malkhan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All554; 1961CriLJ602
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. This application raises an interesting question of the right of a Magistrate holdingan enquiry under Ch. 18 Cr. P.C. to cancel a charge framed by him against an accused on the basis of documentary evidence furnished by himafter the framing of the charge.2. The material facts are that the applicantfiled a complaint against the opposite parties for the offences of Section 395 I.P.C. etc. He produced evidence in support of the complaint and theMagistrate after examining the opposite parties framed a charge against them for the offence of Section 395 I.P.C. under Section 210 Cr. P.C. He then called upon them to furnish a list of witnesses tobe examined in defence but they furnished no list. They, however, produced a number ofdocuments which the Magistrate received, and onconsidering them he passed an order, purporting to be one under Section 213 (2), cancelling the charge framed against them and discharging them on the finding that there was no sufficient ground for c...
State Vs. Malik Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1962All156
Oak, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State arising out of a prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Malik Ram respondent deals in Ghee. One day one Food Inspector took a sample of Ghee from the respondent's shop. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. It was reported that the Ghee was adulterated. Malik Ram was, therefore, prosecuted under section 7 read with section 16 of the Act for exposing adulterated Ghee for sale. The accused pleaded not guilty. He denied that the Ghee in question was adulterated. The learned Magistrate held that the Ghee was adulterated. Malik Ram accused was convicted under section 7/16 of the Act, and was fined Rs. 100/. 2. Malik Ram appealed. The appeal came up before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kumaun. He held that it was not proved that, the Ghee was adulterated. He, therefore, allowed the appeal, and acquitted Malik Ram. Hence this appeal by the State. 3. There is not much disPut...
Jwala Prasad Vs. Jwala Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All381
Mootham, C.J.1. In the course of the winding up of the respondent bank the appellant submitted a claim for a very substantial sum of money. The official Liquidator rejected the major part of the claim and the appellant appealed to the Company Judge. The Company Judge dismissed the appeal subject to certain minor adjustments. Against the order of the Company Judge the appellant filed a special appeal which was allowed in part by a Division Bench by a judgment dated the 14th March, 1957.'The Official Liquidator filed an application for a review of that judgment, but the Bench considered itself precluded as undoubtedly it was, from entertaining the application in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Mt. Abhilakhi v. Sada Nand. : AIR1931All244 . The Bench however entertained a doubt as to whether Abhilakhi's case : AIR1931All244 has been rightly decided, and as the matter was one of considerable importance it has referred to rhis Bench two questions: first, whether a decision g...
Ahmed Ullah Khan Vs. the District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1960
Reported in: 1962CriLJ256
ORDERJ.K. Tandon, J.1. It may be necessary at the very outset to state certain facts to enable the controversy to be judged. On 11th, September, 1957 (the year 1953 given in annexure F is a mistake) the Civil Authority who was the Superintendent of Police, Shahjhanpur, served a notice upon the petitioner under the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946 that he was a Pakistani national who had entered this country under a passport and that his visa expired on the 21st September, 1953 but he was still continuing here. He, therefore, required him to leave India within thirty days from the date of the service of the notice else he will be prosecuted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and steps will also be taken to deport him out of the limits of this country. Prior to the service of the above notice the petitioner had oh more than one occasion made an attempt to be repatriated to this country in pursuance of the Nehru Liaqat Pact but his efforts did not materialize.2. His parents, both...
Brij Pal Singh Vs. Sukhbiri Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1960
Reported in: 1962CriLJ681
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. No body appears t0 oppose this reference; Sri J. Chatterjee appearing for the State supports it. There is no controversy about the facts of the case. The applicant is the husband of the opposite party. In 1954 the opposite party applied for maintenance allowance under Section 488(1), Cr.P.C. and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on September 29, 1955 passed an order, granting her maintenance allowance of Rs. 40/- per month. Subsequently she instituted a civil suit for past maintenance and the applicant instituted another civil suit for restitution of conjugal rights. On 1.5.1958 the civil court decreed the applicant's suit, and dismissed the opposite party's suit, holding that the apposite party herself had deserted the applicant in August 1954 without any reasonable cause and that consequently she was not entitled to any maintenance from him.On 2.1.1959 despite the result of the two civil suits, and concealing it from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the opposite party...
State Vs. Ram Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ331
B. Dayal, J.1. This is a Government appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate obviously under Section 251-A(11) Cr, P.C.2. A charge-sheet was under Sections 147 and 325 I.P.C. was submitted against six persons on 23-9-1959. The case was registered on 1-12- 1959 and on 23-12-1959 the accused appeared. The accused were examined on 31-12-1959 and a charge was framed against them. The case was then adjourned for 21st, 22nd and 23rd of January, 1960, for recording of the prosecution evidence. When the case was called up for hearing on the 21st of January, 1960, the accused were present but on behalf of the prosecution, an application was made that the witnesses were not present and the hearing be adjourned.The ease was thereupon adjourned for the 22nd of January, 1960. Same thing happened on the 22nd of January, 1960 also and the case was fixed for the 23rd of January, 1960. On the 23rd of January, 1960 the Assistant Public Prosecutor moved an application that the witnes...
State Vs. Tilakdhari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1960
Reported in: 1962CriLJ386
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. The opposite parties are residents of village Choriamb, police station Kotwali Dehat and still live there. The station officer of Police Station Pandari submitted information to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sadar, Mirzapur to the effect that the opposite parties were habitual thieves and burglars and requested him to bind them down under Section 110 Cri.P.C. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has as such territorial jurisdiction over police circle Pandari but not over police circle Kotwali Dehat and the station officer submitted the information to him alleging that the opposite parties have shifted themselves to village Atraura of Police Station Pandari. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the basis of the information on 19.3.1959 passed an order contemplated by Section 112 Cir.P.C. calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why they should not be bound down under Section 110 on account of being habitual thieves, house breakers etc. The opposite parties congested th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›