Allahabad Court March 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.
Zafar UddIn Ahmad Vs. L. Madan Mohan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1960All612
V. Bhargava, J.1. This revision application is directed against an order of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court. Moradabad, dismissing an application for setting aside an ex parte decree. The ex parte decree in question was passed by that Court on 2-6-1953. On 6-7-1953, the defendant applicant moved an application for a direction from the Court permitting him to furnish security through a personal surety bond for the entire decretal amount. At the same time, he presented an application for setting aside the ex parte decree supported by an affidavit as also a personal surety bond for the entire decretal amount. On 9-7-1953, the Court made an order 'allowed' on the application of the applicant to permit him to furnish security in the form of a personal surety bond.On the 14th of July, the applicant deposited Rs. 9/- and odd in cash in the court apprehending that the surety bond furnished by him may not be considered as covering the entire decretal amount which was in excess of Rs. 1000/...
Chandausi Oil Mills Vs. Sales Tax Commissioner
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC310(All)
V. Bhargava, J. 1. These sales tax references Nos. 368 to 377 of 1953 are connected and have been heard together. In all these ten cases the question referred to this Court for opinion by the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax is :-Whether linseed oil is edible oil within the meaning of notification No. S.T. 117/X-923/1948, dated 8th June, 1948?2. This question has been referred to us as the dealers concerned with these ten references are all dealers in linseed oil and the question arose whether tax on their turnover in respect of linseed oil was to be calculated at the rate applicable to edible oils or at the rate applicable to non-edible oils in view of the notification referred to in the question. The Sales Tax Officer who first made the assessment held that linseed oil is a non-edible oil. The Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax came to the view that linseed oil is edible oil and for this purpose he relied mainly on the Report on the Marketing of Linseed in India, 1938 Edition, published by the Man...
Deoki Nandan Vs. Makhan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All386
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the decree of the learned District Judge, Agra dismissing his suit for redemption of a mortgage. This mortgage was made in the year 1874 by one Tulfi in favour of a man called Kan-hayia Ram. The amount borrowed under the mortgage was Rs. 99/- repayable within 5 years together with simple interest at Rs. 1/4/- per mensem. The mortgage contained a condition that the mortgagee would be entitled to take possession of the land in the event of default in payment of any instalments of one year's interest. It appears that such a default did take place with the result that Kanhayia Ram filed a suit for possession which was decreed and possession delivered to him. After this, the mortgage became usufructuary.The plaintiff appellant Farasram is the succes-sor-in-interest of the mortgagor Tulfi and the defendant respondents of the mortgagee Kanhayia Ram. It is not necessary to relate how they acquired their respective interests. In 1939...
Sri Thakur Krishna Chandramajiu Vs. Kanhayalal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All206
Gurtu, J.1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiff in the action. The plaintiff is a deity, Shri Shri Thakur Krishna Chandramajiu installed at Lala Babu's temple in the holy city of Brindaban by its next Mend, Swami Satyananda Tirtha (since deceased and after him, his Chela Swami Shiyanand Tirtha), disciple of Swami Shankar Hari Har Tirtha Jiu,residing at Brindaban, Lala Babu's temple, districtMathura.2. The plaintiff prays (a) that a decree be passed declaring the properties in suit as absolute debutter of the plaintiff deity and that the same are unaffected by the mortgtages, dated the 22nd June, 1925 and 24th December, 1925 and the decree thereon in suit No. 1365 of 1927 of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William, in Bengal in its ordinary original Civil Jurisdiction and that the sales held thereunder be declared to be void, ultra vires, without jurisdiction, illegal and invalid and not binding on the plaintiff and (b) that a decree for Khas possession in favour of the plainti...
Narsingh NaraIn Tewari Vs. the Board of High School and Intermediate E ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1960All653
Dwivedi, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of alearned single Judge of this Court dismissing theappellant's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The facts culminating in this appeal are these: The appellant passed the examination for the V standard from the Tindwari Primary School in the district of Banda in 1951 and thereafter joined the Junior High School in the same district. He failed in the 1955 examination of the VIII standard in that school. Thereafter, his father took him for admission to IX class in the Rehmania Intermediate College, Maudaha, district Hamirpur. The application for the appellant's admission, as required by Rules, was made by the father. In the relevant column of that application against the entry 'the last institution where he had studied', it was shown that he had studied in the V standard in the Tindwari Primary School.The fact that he had read upto the VIII standard in the Junior High School in the district of Banda and had failed...
Raj Pat Singh Vs. Dy. Superintendent of Police, Basti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All169
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Raj Pat Singh petitioner for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the various steps taken in the departmental proceeding: conducted against him which eventually resulted in his dismissal from service.2. The petitioner joined the U. P. Police Force as a Constable on 26-8-1947 and at the time the departmental action was taken against him, he was, holding the post of a Head Constable. In the month, of March or April 1955, the Station Officer, S. I. Suraj Pratap Singh, orally reported to the Circle Inspector, Ram Nandan Rai, that the petitioner had not paid full amounts due to village chaukidars though he had obtained thumb-marks or signatures in token of having paid the full amounts to them, andthereby submitted a false report of full disbursement to the Accountant, Thereupon C. I. Ram Nandan Rai made an inquiry and recorded the statements of village chaukidars and of the petitioner.Thy Circl...
Standard Glass Beads Factory and anr. Vs. Shri Dhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1960All692
Mootham, C.J. 1. The question which has been referred to this Bench is whether an order of a learned Judge of this Court dismissing an appeal against an order granting a temporary injunction is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The meaning which should be given to the word 'judgment' in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court and in the corresponding Clauses of the Letters Patent of the other High Courts has engaged the minds of Judges for close on a hundred years, and has given rise to a divergence of opinion which can now only be resolved by the Supreme Court. The question has been considered in a very large number of cases many of which have been referred to in the judgment of my brother Srivastava. Basically there are three views as to what constitutes a 'judgment'. A decision according to one view will amount to a judgment if it determines some right or liability affecting the merits of the dispute between the parties; according to the seco...
industrial Employees Union, 106/371, Hiraganj, Kanpur Vs. State of Utt ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1960All738; [1960(1)FLR569]
ORDERV.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the Industrial Employees Union through its General Secretary, against the State of Uttar, Pradesh, the Adjudicator at Kanpur, Messrs. Cawnpore Tannery Limited, and the Electric Inspector to Government Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The prayer in the writ petition is that the order of the Adjudicator dated the 20th of May, 1957, be quashed, a direction be issued to the Electric Inspector to Government of Uttar Pradesh not to enforce the award given by the Adjudicator; a further direction be issued to the Government of Uttar Pradesh not to enforce the award dated 20th of May, 1957; and Sri Abdul Rashid Wire-man be given compensation.2. Abdul Rashid was working as a wire-man in the concern of respondent No. 3, Messrs. Kanpur Tannery Limited. He was working as an electric wire-man and his licence used to be renewed from time to time. For the year 1954 the licences was sent to the Assistant Electric Inspector to Government for renewal along...
Sita Ram and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All151; 1961CriLJ338; [1961(2)FLR332]; (1961)IILLJ1All
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. The simple question raised in this revision application is whether the complaint filed on 30-4-1958 for an offence under the Factories Act, 1948, the commission of which came to the notice of the Inspector on 31-1-1958, was 'withinthree months of' the latter date or not. Under Section 106 of the Factories Act no court can take cognizance of an, offence punishable under the Act unless complaint thereof is made 'within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector.'If the period of three months is computed after excluding 31-1-1958, it is admittedly within three months, but if 31-1-1958 is taken to be the first day of the period of three months the complaint is admittedly not within three months. In B. P. Thakur v. State, 1959 All LJ 317 : (AIR 1959 All 787), I took the view that Section 12 of the Limitation Act applies, that consequently the date on which the offence came to the notice of the Inspector...
Lala Madho Prasad Marwari Vs. Raja Jwaleshwari Pratap NaraIn Singh and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1960All513
Mootham, C.J.1. The circumstances in which this reference has been made are these:Raja Jaleshwari Pratap Singh was the lessee of a piece of land which, on the 3rd January, 1935, he sub-Jet to Lala Ram Swaroop Agarwal who on the same day executed a quabuliat containing a covenant with regard to the payment of zare-chaharum to which we refer more fully later. A building was subesquently constructed on this piece of land in which Lala Ram Swamp Agarwal and one Bhairo Prasad had a 10/16th share, the remaining 6/16th share being possessed by one Hira Lal. Lala Ram Swarup Agarwal and Bhairo Prasad were the partners of a firm known as Badridas Chunnilal. and that firm was declared insolvent on the 17th January, 1939, the second respondent being appointed the official assignee. On the 31st March, 1943. the official assignee sold the 10/16th share of the insolvents in the house in question to the appellant for Rs. 7,500/. Thereafter Raja Jaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh filed a suit against the o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »