Allahabad Court December 1961 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.
Nand Ram Chhotey Lal Vs. Kishori Raman Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-26-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All521
M. Lal, J.1. This Civil Revision by Messrs, Nand Ram Chottey Lal, decree-holders, has been filed against the orders passed by the Special Judge, first class, Ali-garh, reducing the debts of the applicants from Rs. 6,46,000/- to Rs. 1,84,571/- under Section 4 of the U. P, Zamindars debt Reduction Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act). 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the applicants advanced a sum of Rs. 5,11,000/- on the basis of a mortgage dated 20th June, 1924, and another sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- on the basis of another mortgage dated 23rd May, 1929 to Raja Datt Prasad Singh. The properties mortgaged in the first deed consisted of Zamindari properties of 56 villages and the right to receive Malikana in the sum of Rs. 23,802/- per annum from the Government treasuries at Mathura and Aligarh. In the second mortgage 35 other villages besides the 56 villages of the first mortgage; all in the districts of Mathura and Aligarh, constituted the mortgage property. 3. The original mortgagor R...
Ram Saran Tewari Vs. Raj Bahadur Varma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All315
Desai, C.J.1. I would answer the question in the negative; I regret I cannot agree with the view expressed by my learned brothers to the effect that Nyaya Panchayats are as courts subordinate to this Court within the meaning of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act. They may be 'courts' but I am not persuaded to hold them to be subordinate to this Court. in the case of Sukhdeo Baiswar v. Brij Bhusan, : AIR1951All667 referred to by them. I did hold that they are subordinate to this Court but I revised the view in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Ratan Shukla : AIR1956All258 and Bishun Kant v. Vijai Bahadur Singh, Cr. Misc. Contempt Case No. 6 of 1959, D/- 25-11-1959 (All).2. Neither (the Contempt of Courts Act nor the Constitution, ,nor any other enactment explains which Courts are subordinate to this Court. The Government of India Act and the Constitution have used different phrases to describe how other Courts stand in relation to the High Court of the territory they being 'inferior co...
Harbanswala Tea Estate Vs. Srivastava (J.N.) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1961
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ682All
Brijlal Gupta, J.1. This is a special appeal under the rules of Court challenging the decision of a learned single Judge on a writ petition.2. The writ petition was filed for quashing the award of an arbitrator under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, It appears that there was a dispute between the petitioner and its six workmen, who are respondents 2 to 7 in the special appeal. The workmen appear to have been penalized by certain orders of the petitioner. The petitioner and its workmen entered into an agreement for arbitration of the dispute by the regional conciliation officer. The agreement was drawn up in a form prescribed under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. There was a column in this form headed 'Name of the union, if any,representing workmen in question. 'Against this column the word 'none' was entered.3. In due course the parties appeared before the arbitrator and an award was pronounced. During the course of proceedings before the arbitrat...
Ram Autar Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All328; (1962)ILLJ148All
Oak, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, validity of a Government notification lowering the age of superannuation has been challenged. Ram Autar Pandey is the petitioner. The State of Uttar Pradesh and the District Judge, Mainpuri are the two opposite Parties.2. The petitioner was born on the 4th of May 1906. He joined service in 1929 in Mainpuri judgeship. He is at present occupying the post of Record Keeper in the said judgeship. Under Rule 56of the U. P. Fundamental Rules, it was laid down that the date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant is the date on which he attains the age of 55 years. By a Government notification issued on 27-11-1957 (hereafter referred to as 1957 notification) the figure '58' was substituted for the figure 55' in Fundamental Rule 56. According to this notification, the petitioner could remain in service till the completion of 58 years. It was expected that he would not retire from service till May 1964.3. On 25-5-1961, t...
Mohammad YamIn and ors. Vs. Abdul Majid and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All476
Srivastava, J.1. This is a Special Appeal on behalf of the defendants and arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract of resale. One Ali Bux was originally the owner of the house in suit. He sold it to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 now the appellants on the 6th of March, 1938 for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/-. On the same date the vendees, i.e., defendants Nos. 1 and 2 executed in his favour an agreement by which they agreed to re convey the property to him if within a period of ten years from the date of the sale he paid back to them the consideration of Rs. 1,000/-. Ali Bux subsequently died leaving a number of heirs including the plaintiffs. The defendant no. 1 was the husband of one of the daughters of Ali Bux. On the death of that daughter he along with defendants Nos. 8 to. 13 too inherited a share in Ali Bux's properties. The plaintiffs who were two of the sons of Ali Bux instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for specific performance of the contract ...
Mahasai Parbhu Dayal Vs. Man Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All512
Brijlal Gupta, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession and for recovery of damages in respect of house property described in the plaint. The appeal came before us on reference by a learned Single Judge. 2. The plaintiff's case was that one Ram Das filed suit No. 354 of 1939 against one Ram Lal for recovery of money. The suit was decreed ex parte and in due course a 3/4th share in the house in question was sold and purchased by the plaintiff-appellant on 21-1-1941. On 15-5-1941 there was Dakhaldihani by which possession was obtained by the plaintiff-appellant. Despite, however, the purchase and possession by the plaintiff-appellant of the property in question Ram Lal, Judgment-debtor was allowed to remain in the house. On 19-9-1945 Ram Lal died, whereupon it is alleged that respondent No. 1, His Highness the Maharajaof Jaipur took forcible possession of the house and granted a lease in respect of the same in favour of Tulsi Ram, Defendant-respondent No. 2 ...
Hot Chand Shamdas Vs. Lala Sri Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All234
Mithanlal, J.1. This Civil Revision filed by the defendant arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 617/8/-.2. On 26th February 1957 the defendant firm entered into a contract of forward transaction for supply of 250 bags of oil cakes at the rate of Rs. 8/5/- per maund. The delivery was to take place on 13th May 1957. No delivery of the goods was given and the plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of damages stating that he had to purchase of cakes at Rs. 9/9/- per maund. A loss was said to have been suffered by the plaintiff.3. The main defence to the case was that the contract was of a wagering nature and that forward transactions in vegetable oil and oil cakes having been banned by the Vegetable Oils and Oilcakes (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order, 1944, dated 8th January 1944, the plaintiff could neither enforce the contract, nor could he claim any damages in respect of it.4. The learned Judge Small Causes, Aligarh, upheld the defendant's contention and dismissed the suit. A r...
Firm Nanak Chand and ors. Vs. Lala Pannalal Proprietor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All68
K.B. Asthana, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal against whom a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,043/- with proportionate costs, pendente lite and future interest has been passed. The plaintiff respondent Lala Panna Lal filed a suit against the defendants appellants and one Dr. Sheo Shankar who is not an appellant before this Court on the allegation that the plaintiff carried on businessin the name of Basant Lal Panna Lal and the defendants carried on the business in the sale and purchase of Bins and cigarettes through their firm named Nanak Chand and Sons, that the defendant firm used to take money in cash as loan from the plaintiff at the interest of annas -/12/-per mensem and in lieu of that used to pawn their Bins and cigarettes with the plaintiff.It was further alleged that between October, 1946, and the beginning of December, 1947 the plaintiff had advanced loans amounting to Rs. 21,931/15/- to the defendants; that the defendants paid a sum of Rs. 17,017/- towards the loan wh...
Om Prakash and anr. Vs. Moti Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All310
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. A decree in suit No. 181 of 1951, of the Court of 1st Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, wasobtained against the father of the plaintiff-appellants by the respondents and in the execution of the same some houses were attached. The plaintiff-appellants filed the suit giving rise to this appeal and prayed for the following reliefs on the allegation that the father of the plaintiff-appellants was a man of deficient mind and inasmuch as no guardian ad-litem had been appointed to protect his interests in the suit, the decree passed in suit No. 181 of 1951 was a nullity:-'The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed for the following reliefs:- A. It be declared that the decree in suit No. 181 of 1951 of the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Kanpur, Motilal and Ors. v. Madan Behari Lal is not enforceable against house No. 22/2, Filkhana, Kanpur, 55/59, Kahoo Kothi, Kanpur, and premises No. 84/57, Jarib ki chauki, G. T. Road, Kanpur known as Indian Distillery and especially against the plaintiff...
Raghu Nath Dass and ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All344
V. Bhargava, J.1. The following question has been referred for opinion of the Full Bench:--'Are renewals included in the term 'loan' as used in Section 28 of the U. P Agriculturists' Relief Act and/or a debtor can insist that transactions of renewals should be re-opened and interest allowed according to theScheduled rate of the Act on the amount of the first transaction of renewal after coming into force of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act and that the subsequent renewals should be ignored?'The facts which have given rise to this reference may be briefly stated. The respondents filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,270/14/- on the basis of a promissory note. There were money lending transactions between the parties to the suit and after an accounting which took place on Aghan Badi 12 Sambat 1991, a sum of Rs. Rs. 9,178/11/3 was found due to the plaintiff from the defendants. The defendants executed a promissory note for this amount in favour of the plaintiff on the 3rd of De...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »