Allahabad Court April 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.
British India Corporation Ltd. Vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1961
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ523All
V.G. Oak, J.1. This writ petition arises out of an industrial dispute. The British India Corporation Limited, Kanpur, are the petitioner.2. M.A. Khan, who is respondent 5 in this writ petition, was an employee of the petitioner. On 26 April 1954, the general manager of the petitioner-company issued a notice to M.A. Khan terminating his services with effect from 27 April 1954. The employee was to he given salary for one month in lieu of notice. M.A. Khan complained that the termination of his services was wrongful. The State Government referred the industrial dispute to Sri S.N. Saxena, adjudicator for arbitration. He gave an award on 10 June 1955 holding that M. A. Khan's discharge was unjustified. The adjudicator, therefore, directed the petitioner to pay M. A. Khan salary for sixteen months. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow. The present writ petition is directed against the appellate order of the Labour Appellate Tribu...
Singh Engineering Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal (i) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1961
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ455All
D.S. Mathur J.1. This judgment governs Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petitions Nos. 56 and 57 of 1960, both by Singh Engineering Works (P), Ltd. Kanpur (to be referred hereinafter as the petitioner company) to challenge the awards of the presiding officer, industrial tribunal (I), Allahabad, respondent 1, on two references made to it by the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, respondent 2 (to be referred hereinafter as the State Government), As the questions of law involved therein are the same, both the petitions are being disposed of by one judgment. The request made in both the petitions is that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued to quash the a wards, dated 26 September 1959, and also a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the State Government to withdraw the reference orders contained in Notification Nos. 254(LC)/XVIII-LA-868(KR)-1958, dated 4 May 1959 and 242(LC)/XVIII-LA-1237 (IKR)-1958, dated 8 May 1959 as subsequently amended by Notification No. 393(LC)/XVIII-LA-...
Rishipal and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All13
D.P. Uniyal, J.1. The appellants, who are seven in number, have filed this appeal against their conviction and sentences under Sees. 399 and 402 I.P.C. and Section 19(f) of the Arms Act. Each of them has been sentenced to 5 years' R. I. under Section 399 I. P. C. and to 3 years' R. I. under Section 402 I.P.C. Baijnath and Ram Pratap appellants have further been sentenced to one year's R. I. each under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act. The sentences awarded to the appellants under the various counts have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts, shortly stated, are as follows. On the 14th November, 1959 at 6-30 a.m. B.D. Sharma, Station Officer, Police Station Fatehganj East, District Bareilly, received information through a reliable source that a gang led by Gokaran dacoit was hiding itself near village Nagaria for committing dacoity. The Station Officer collected a police force and reached Sadhu-ki-Madhi near village Nagaria. There the informant again met him and told him that the g...
Baldeo Prasad Vs. Mt. Ram Kali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All123
V.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Court's Act.2. Mr. Tara Nath Chatterji appears to have taken a very peculiar view in this case. There are other cases which have come to my knowledge in which even written statement had not been filed, yet the learned Judge dismissed the suit on the ground of non-presentation o a promissory note.3. The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 430/- on the basis of a promissory note executed by defendant on 12-11-1951 for a sum of Rs. 250/-.4. The defendant by means of an application took the plea that the plaintiff had not disclosed the cause of action and that would entail dismissal of the suit. The point taken was a preliminary point and the issue framed by the Small Cause Court Judge was :'1. Does the plaint disclose a cause of action?'5. The plaintiff resides in Mauza Shuklapur, while the defendant resides in Mauza Mahewa Khurd. They are different places. The promissory note was payable a...
Abdul Haleem Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ414
ORDERJ.N. Takru, J.1. Abdul Haleem has filed this revision application against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Rampur whereby he affirmed in appeal an order of a first class Magistrate of the place convicting the applicant Under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act 1946, but reducing his sentence from 18 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- to one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 50/-. The facts giving rise to this revision are as follows :2. The applicant came to Rampur on the authority of a Pakistani Passport dated the 7th January 1955 and an Indian Visa of Category 'C dated the 30th January 1957 which entitled him to stay in India for a period of three months. The applicant entered India on the 10th February 19S7. His Visa wag subsequently extended Upto the 19th June 1957. The applicant, however, did not leave India by that date and continued to stay on. Consequently on the 26th Juno 1957 a notice was served on him requiring him to leave India within 30 days of its' service. The...
Bhumarg Yatayat Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All145
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J.1. This is a petition under Article 228 of the Constitution of India by Messrs. Bhumarg Yatayat (Registered), 431, Khatikan, Muzaffarnagar, through Uma Sharan (to be referred herein after us the petitioner), for the issue of a writ of certiorari or a like writ or direction to quash the resolution dated! the 6th/7th April, 1960, and also for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents, namely, the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, and the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority Meerut, to forbear from giving effect to the said impugned resolution.2. The facts of the case are not in controversy. What the respondents have pleaded in the counter-affidavit is to justify their action.3. The admitted facts of the present case are that Muzaffarnagar-Rohana-Charthawal route, about 15 miles long, was declared a B-class route under the U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1935, and in the beginning applications for permanent permits were invited and lat...
State and anr. Vs. Jagannath Singhal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All153
ORDERJagdish Sahai, J. 1. The opposite party Jagannath Singhal (hereinafter referred to as Singhal) holds a decree for a sum of RS. 17,344/4/- against the Rampur Bankers Ltd., Rampur (hereinafter called the Bankers). The Bankers had advertised that for every deposit of Rs. 100/- they would pay to the depositor a sum of Rs. 687/7/- after the expiry of six months. Singhal had deposited with the Bankers a sum of Rs. 2,500/- and claimed from them a sum of Rs. 17,344/47- which they did not pay. Consequently he filed a suit and1 obtained the decree mentioned above. In the meantime the directors and some of the employees of the Bankers were convicted under Section 420, I. P. C., for having cheated the public by making a false representation that for every sum of Rs. 100/- deposited thty would after the expiry of six months pay to the depositor a sum of Rs. 687/7/-. When the criminal case had been started the State seized large sums of money from the custody of the Bankers on the ground that t...
Sadhu Singh Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All193
Uniyal, J.1. The applicants were tried for the offence of murder by the Sessions Judge, Naini Tal, and were convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. by an order dated 10-4-60. Sadhu Singh was sentenced to death while the remaining applicants were sentenced to imprisonment for life. Their appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 12-7-60 which confirmed the death sentence passed on Sadhu Singh, The applicants then applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court but the same was dismissed by the High Court on 11-8-60. Thereafter they moved the Supreme Court by means of a petition for special leave to appeal but it was also rejected by an order dated 13-10-60.2. The applicants have now applied to this Court tinder Section 561-A Cr. P. C. for review of the appellate order of the High Court dated 12-7-60 on the allegation that the site plan prepared by the investigating officer and relied upon at the trial was a forged document and that perjured evidence had been produced by the prosecution in...
Dahra Dun Tea Company, Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1961
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ184All
D.S. Mathur, J.1. This Is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Dehra Dun Tea Company, Ltd., to be referred hereinafter as the petitioner, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the award dated 1 December 1959 made by the presiding officer of the labour court, Meerut, respondent 1, in adjudication cases Nos. 30 and 113 of 1959 and also for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct respondent 2, the Government of State of Uttar Pradesh, to withdraw notifications Nos. 207 (LO/XVIII-LA-105 (MR)/1958 dated 16 April 1959 and 608 (LC) XVIII-LA-59 (MRS)/1959 dated 17 August 1959 and also to direct respondent 2 not to enforce the award dated 1 December 1959 in adjudication cases Nos. 30 and 113 of 1959. The two notifications referred to above are the notifications under which the State Government referred the industrial disputes to the labour court. No ground has been made out for quashing these notifications. Consequently, this part of the prayer is redundant an...
Kashiram Bhajan Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P., Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All472; [1962]45ITR1(All)
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The statement of the case submitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) gives the following facts. The assesses M/s Kashiram Bhajanlal (hereinatter called the assessee) carries on business of cloth and arhat at Farrikhabad and also manufactures utensils. For the assessment years 194546, 1946-47 and 1947-48 the assessee was assessed on income shown as below:YearIncome UnderSectionDate of order1945-46Rs. 65,667/-23(3)/3428.2-1950.1946-47 '25,763/-Do.Do.1947.48 '90,343/-Do.Do.2. Demand notices were sent for the tax due from the assessee but the demand not having been satisfied the following orders of penalty were passed under Section 46(1) of the Act on 1-10-1951.For theyear 1945-46, Rs. 6,000/-,For theyear 1946-47, Rs. 2000 andFor theyear 1947-48, Rs. 10,000/-.3. The assessee did not pay the tax nor did he pay the amounts of pen...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »