Allahabad Court September 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.
Dr. Brij Mohan Sharma Vs. the Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All331
ORDERTandon, J.1. The petitioner, Dr. Brij Mohan Sharma entered the service of the Lucknow University in October, 1933. For some time he worked as Lecturer. Later in 1948 he became a Reader and ultimately a Professor of Political Science in February, 1952. He also entered into an agreement with the University concerning his employment as a teacher of the University. On the 18th of March, 1936, his date of birth was recorded as 27th January, 1900.In 1956 the Executive Council of the University adopted a resolution providing that for the purposes of superannuation the age of a teacher as evidenced by the High School Certificate shall be accepted. According to such a certificate Dr. Sharma's date of birth would be 15th January, 1898, In April, 1957 the Executive Council whose attention had apparently been drawn to the difference in the two dates, the one recorded earlier in 1936, i.e., the 27th January, 1900, and the other as entered in the High School Certificate i.e., the 15th January, ...
Dominion of India Vs. L. Badu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1962All461
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal came up for hearing before a Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Beg and Mr. Justice Mathur. There was a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges and the scope of that difference is discernible from the three questions they framed for obtaining the opinion of a third Judge. The questions which were formulated were these:'1. Is the notice relied upon by the plaintiff as complying with the provisions of Section 80, C. P. C. invalid on the ground that it does not state the cause of action? 2. The plaintiff having sent notices ExL. 3 dated 8-11-1947 and Exhibit 8-P. W. 4 dated 18-12-1947, was it still necessary for him to send another notice under the provisions of Section 80, C. P. C. as amended by C P C (Amendment) Act, 1948 (Act No. VI of 1948)? 3. Should the entire claim of the plaintiff for damages be dismissed on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the market value of goods at the place of destination on the date on which such goods ought t...
Hanuman Prasad Vs. State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1960
Reported in: 1962CriLJ632
ORDERA.P. Srivastava, J.1. This application in revision arose out of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The proceedings started on the basis of a police report. A number of persons were then impleaded by the learned Magistrate as opposite parties and were directed to file their written statements One of them was Bhagwati Prasad Pandey. Written statements were filed. Affidavits and documents were produced. The Magistrate could not decide the question of possession himself and made a reference to the Munsif under Section 146 of the Code, While the reference was pending before the Munsif, Bhagwati Pd. Pandey died. The Munsif thereupon sent the case back to the learned Magistrate for bringing on record the legal representatives of Bhagwati Pd. Pandey as permitted by Sub-section (7) of Section 145, Bhagwati Pd. Pandey had left three sons including the present applicant Hanuman Prasad Pandey. All the three sons of Bhagwati Pd. Pandey were impleaded in the case in his place as his legal re...
State Vs. Mukhtar Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ333
J.N. Takru, J.1. These three appeals by the State are directed against an appellate order of the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad and two appellate orders of the learned Civil and Sessions Judge of Rampur acquitting Mukhtar Ahmad in the first appeal and Guchhan and Ibban Khan in the second and third appeals respectively under Section 14 of the Foreigners' Act, 1946 - hereinafter called the Act of 1946 - for the contravention of para 7 of the Foreigners' Order of 1948 - hereinafter called the Order of 1948, As all these appeals raise the same question of law, it will be convenient to dispose of them by a single judgment. The facts, strictly relevant for the decision of these appeals, are not in dispute and, stated briefly, are as follows:2. Mukhtar Ahmad, the respondent in G. A; No. 2216 of 1959, was formerly a citizen of India. In 1948 he went away to Pakistan. After residing there for a Few years lie applied for, and was grant-ed, a Passport by the Pakistan Government on the 2nd of...
Kundan Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All567; [1961(2)FLR126]; (1961)ILLJ679All
Srivastava, J. 1. This is an appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Chaturvedi allowing a petition filed by the respondent No. 1 under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The facts which led to the petition appear to be these. The appellant Sri Kundan Lal was an employee of the Central Railway and was working in the year 1953 as goods clerk (inward) at Belanganj, Agra. On the 2nd of June 1953 he received two bags of money containing a sum of Rs. 4098/-12/- which he was expected to keep locked in an iron safe. He himself claimed that he had put the money in the safe at 7.30 P. M. and had locked the safe. It was however found the next morning that the lock of the safe was open and the amount was missing.The appellant was thereupon put under suspension pending an enquiry. On the 10th of July 1953 a charge-sheet was framed against him in which he was charged with negligence of duty on his Part inasmuch as he had failed to lock the safe after putting the cash in it. The appellant submitt...
Vikarma Singh and ors. Vs. Smt. Parbati Kunwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All97
R.A. Misra, J.1. This appeal has come before us on reference by a learned Single Judge of this Court, as in his opinion it raises a question of importance and some difficulty, touching which there is no decision and that it should, therefore be decided by a Bench. The question posed is whether a custom excluding daughters would also exclude daughter's daughter from inheritance when at the time the custom grew, the daughter's daughter was not an heir under the Hindu Law.2. The appeal has arisen out of a suit instituted by respondents Hansraj Singh and Vindraban Singh for damages and recovery of possession of cultivatory plots mentioned in annexure 'A' and the grove mentioned in annexure 'B' to the plaint. The suit was instituted against twelve defendants. It was alleged in the plaint that one Jagannath Singh who was the owner of the property in suit had three daughters Smt. Ramraj Kunwar, Smt. Mainatha Kunwar and Smt. Bhoga Kunwar. That Hansraj Singh, plaintiff No. 1 is the son of Smt. ...
M/S Sri Ram Mahadeo Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-1960
Reported in: AIR1962All98; [1961]42ITR211(All)
Upadhya, J.1. The questions referred for the opinion of this Court are-1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the oil mill is a commercial asset? 2. Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case the income arising oat of the letting out of the oil mill is an income from business within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Excess Profits Tax Act and hence taxable under the Act? 2. This case relates to assessments under the Excess Profits Tax Act for the chargeable accounting periods ending 12th September 1945 and 31st March 1946. The assessee runs a flour mill and during the chargeable accounting period immediately preceding those in question in this case he constructed an oil mill but instead of running it himself leased it out to Messrs. Krishan Mohan Bhuvan Shah. The rent received was subjected to income-tax under the Income-tax Act and there is no dispute about that assessment. The Excess Profits Tax Officer subjected that Income from lease to tax under the Ex...
Ganga and ors. Vs. Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All526
ORDERB. Mukerji, J.1. This is an application in revision against a decision of the Munsif decreeing the plaintiff's suit in its entirety with costs and pendente lite and future interest. The learned Munsif, however, directed payment of the amount decreed to be made in instalments.2. The plaintiffs sued for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1869/5/6 on the basis of 'bahi khatas'. The suit had been filed against a father and his three minor sons; the father was Chhotey Lal and his minor sons were the three applicants before me. Chhotey Lal the father's defence, in the main, was that there was no contractual liability to pay interest on the sum, and further that he had made a payment of Rs. 587/1/9 and that by mistake the plaintiffs had given credit for only Rs. 87/5/9. The defence of the minors was a total denial of any liability; the minors clearly said that whatever may have been the liability of the father, they were not liable for the payment back of any amount.3. One Rajrup Dube Vakil ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›