Allahabad Court May 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.
Buddhan Singh and anr. Vs. Nabi Bux and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All43
Desai, C.J.1. I respectfully differ from the judgments of ray brothers Mukerji find Dwivedi and consider that the appeal should be allowed and the suit bought against the appellants by the respondents should be dismissed. The findings of fact which cannot be challenged in second appeal are that the respondents were the owners of the constructions made on the land possessed by the appellants as their riyayas, that is as licensees, that they never abandoned the village, their rights as licensees and the constructions but continued to be the owners of the constructions and the licensees of the site and that during their absence the appellants unlawfully took possession of the constructions and their site, demolished, the constructions and included the site in their own cattle-shed or constructed a cattle-shed over it.On these findings the suit of the respondent was decreed by the trial court and they were ordered to be restored to possession over the sits of the constructions. There could...
Vishwa Pal Sharma Vs. Sukh Sancharak Co. (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All88; [1962]32CompCas947(All)
Mukerji, J. 1. Special Appeal No. 587 of 1959 is by Vishwa Pal Sharma against Sukh Sancharak Company (Private) Limited (in liquidation) and others. Special Appeal No. 22 of 1960 is by Smt Subhadra Devi Sharma and her two sons, Aring Pat Sharma and Kirti Pal Sharma against the Official Liquidator Sukh Sancharak Company Ltd, (in liquidation) and two others, namely, Vishwa Pal Sharma and Brijendra Pal Sharma. Special Appeal No. 29 of 1960 is by Brijendra Pal Sharma against Sukh Sancharak Co. (Private) Ltd. (in liquidation) and Vishwa Pal Sharma, Smt. Subhadra Devi, Aring Pal Sharma and Kirti Pal Sharma.2. The aforementioned appeals arise Out ofthe liquidation proceedings that commended in respect of the private limited company known as the Sukh Sancharak Company (Private) Ltd. The various appellants in the three aforementioned appeals were members of a single family, for the Company was a private limited liability company.3. The company had in all 3000 shares and these 3000 shares were ta...
Raj Kumar and ors. Vs. State Through Lal Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ413
ORDERW. Broome, J.1. In these three connected criminal references the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge of Agra has recommended that proceedings pending against the applicants in the court of the City Magistrate of Agra Under Section 133 CrIPC should be quashed.2. The applicants are occupying various wooden stalls and other structures standing on the footpaths bordering the Hospital Road in Agra. These structures are said to have been put up as a temporary measure in the year 1948 to accommodate refugees arriving from Pakistan. Subsequently the Shivaji Market was built for the use of refugee shop-keepers and many stallholders shifted from the Hospital Road, but the applicants refused to budge and remained in occupation of the offending structures.In December 1957 certain members of the public complained and moved the City Magistrate of Agra to take action in the matter. The Station Officer of the Agra Kotwali was asked xo make an inquiry and his report dated 9-1.1958, which...
Rai Shri Krishna Ji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. and V. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR612(All)
JAGDISH SAHAI J. - The assessee Rai Shri Krishna Ji is the karta of a Hindu undivided family which was assessed to income-tax for the years 1944-45, 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1947-48 on its income from the business of sale and purchase of shares, the interest on securities and other sources. He was also assessed in his individual capacity for the year 1947-48. He filed five appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the assessments mentioned above. These appeals were dismissed and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was communicated to the assessee on 6th October, 1948. The assessee then filed five appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). In these appeals, the Income-tax Commissioner and not the Income-tax Officer had been impleaded as respondent. The office of the Tribunal without noticing that the respondent in the appeals was the Income-tax Commissioner and not the Income-tax Officer regist...
Murli Dhar Vs. Bansidhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All86
Srivastava, J.1. The Chief Inspector of Stamps pointed out a deficiency in respect of the court fee payable in the trial Court on the plaint. When the Taxing Officer required the appellant to make up the deficiency the appellant objected to the report of the Chief inspector of Stamps. The appeal being triable by a Bench, the Taxing Officer directed that the case be laid before a Bench. That is how the case has come before us.2. The appellant was the plaintiff. The two defendants impleaded in the suit were his own brothers. It was alleged in the plaint that the parties were originally members of a joint Hindu family which carried on the business of manufacturing sandal-wood oil. it had a factory at Kanauj for extracting that oil. There was a branch factory at Calcutta also. The plaintiff further alleged that when the family was joint he was recognized by all the members as the Managing Proprietor of the business and continued to act as such. Subsequently the family business was converte...
Ram Samujh Vs. State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All80
ORDERW. Broome, J.1. This criminal revision application, is directed against orders passed by a first class Magistrate of Azamgarh under Section 146 (IB) Cr. P. C.2. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. commenced on a report of the Station Officer of Gambhirpur Police Station regarding a dispute likely to give rise to a breach of the peace between Ghulam Rabbani (first party) and Ram Samujh (second party) over the possession of a certain house in the village of Mohammadpur. The learned Magistrate was unable to decide which party was in possession of the disputed property and consequently on 9-8-1958 passed orders under Section 146 Cr. P. C., keeping the property under attachment; and forwarding the case to the civil court for decision. The City Munsif of Azamgarh gave a finding On 19-2-1960 in favour of Ghulam Rabbani and sent the file back to the Magistrate, who thereupon proceeded to pass orders in conformity with that decision, as provided in Clause (IB) of Section 146.3. The con...
Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Sub-divisional Officer Ghatampur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All518
Desai, C.J. 1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing of an order passed by opposite party No. 1 and for a direction to him to stay transfer of the charge of the office of Pradhan to opposite party No. 2 and not to remove the petitioner from the office of Pradhan during the pendency of an election petition filed by him against the election of opposite party No. 2 as Pradhan. On 4-5-1961 we dismissed the petition and said that the reasons for dismissing it would be placed on record later. We now give the reasons for our order.2. The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha in 1955. The next election for the office of Pradhan was held in December, 1960; opposite Party No. 2, and the petitioner contested the election, and opposite party No. 2 was declared elected. The petitioner filed an election petition in the Court of opposite party No. 1 challenging the election of opposite party No. 2 on various grounds, He also applied to opposite party No. 1 ...
Jwala Prasad Misra and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ407
ORDERW. Broome, J.1. This criminal revision application is directed against orders passed by Sri H. K. Das Tondon Second Class Magistrate of Farni-khabad, refusing to 'drop a case pending again1 the applicants Under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act.2. It appears that the two petitioners maintain warehouses licensed by the central excise authorities under the provisions of the, Central Excises and Salt Act for the storage of tobacco; and the prosecution allegations are at when these warehouses were inspected by the authorities in the first week of February 1959, only 198 bags could be found on the non. duty paid premises as against 278 bags which should have been in stocky while on the duty-paid premises 14 bags and some loose tobacco were found instead of 7 bags and one drum. The total amount'' of duty of which the petitioners are said to have defrauded the Government comes to Rs. 24,000/-.3. The main contention of the applicants, is that no excise duty could legally be re...
Kailash Chandra JaIn and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All1
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. I agree with my brother Dwivedi that the State Government revised under Section 7-F an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate and not the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 3(3) refusing to revise it. The record of the case before the Additional District Magistrate wassummoned by the State Government and the requirement of Section 7-F was fulfilled. The permission to file a suit was refused by the Additional District Magistrate. It cannot be deemed to have been refused by the Commissioner even though he confirmed it. The power of Section 7-F is to be exercised against an order refusing to grant permission for the filing of a suit and it was the Additional District Magistrate who refused it and not the Commissioner. The Commissioner's jurisdiction was to revise the Additional District Magistrate's order if he found that he had acted illegally, incorrectly, improperly or with irregularily. He did not act as an appellate Court. Consequently the S...
Jag Bhushan JaIn Vs. State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All288
Takru, J.1. The following question has been referred by a learned Single Judge for the decision of this Bench :--''Whether a person who lodges a first information report is a party interested within the meaning of Section 526 Cr. P. C. in a case prosecuted by the State'.2. Section 526 Cr. P. C.--hereinafter called the Code--confers power upon and lays down the condition under which, a High Court can transfer a case pending in a criminal court subordinate to its authority from that court to another criminal court of equal or superior jurisdiction, or itself try it. The manner in which, and the persons by whom, the power can be invoked are given in Sub-section (3) of that section. Under that sub-section.'the High Court may act either on the report of the lower court or on the application of a party interested or on its own initiative.'3. The question posed above thus concerns the construction which is to be placed on the expression 'party interested'. Is it confined in its scope--as cont...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »