Allahabad Court September 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.
Banaras Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd. Vs. Government of Uttar Prad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1961
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ14All
V.G. Oak, J.1. This writ petition is directed against an award of the labour court, Gorakhpur.2. Banaraa Electric Light and Power Company, Limited, Bhelupura, Varanasi, is the petitioner. It is a public limited company. S.P. Srivastava, who is opposite party 4 in the writ petition, was an employee of the company. He was employed under a written agreement, dated 11 July 1956. Under that written agreement, each party was entitled to terminate the contract of service by giving one month's notice to the other party. In December 1956, a sum of Rs. 200 and odd was wrongly paid. The company made over the case to the police. The police made Investigation, and gave a report casting suspicion upon Srivastava. On 27 November 1958, the management passed an order terminating Srivastava's services with effect from 1 December 1958.3. The workmen' of the company took up Srivastava's cause, and raised an industrial dispute complaining that Srivastava's discharge from service was wrongful and unjustifie...
Kishan Lal Vs. Har Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All319
Desai, C.J.1. In execution of a decree obtained by the appellant against the respondent certain property of the respondent was put to sale. On the date fixed for the sale the executing Court passed an order staying the sale. A copy of the order was taken by the respondent to the Qurq Amin conducting the saie, and it is alleged that after reading it he returned it to the respondent and proceeded to sell the property. There were bidders including the appellant, who offered Rs. 1000/- and the sale was concluded ig his, favour. More than a month after the sale was held, me respondent filed a petition in the executing Court, the petition expressly purported to be under Order 21 Rule 90, C.P.C. He contended in the petition that the sale was illegal, that no proclamation was made at all with tne result that very few bidders were present and the property worth Rs. 30,000/- was sold to the appellant for Rs. 1000/-, that only his relations and friends were present as bidders, that the sale was h...
Babuni Vs. Mahadeo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All624
ORDERMithan Lal, J. 1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The order passed by the IV Additional Munsif, Kanpur is totally without jurisdiction. It appears that in a suit before the said Munsif an issue was referred to the revenue court. In the revenue court the defendant made a default and the revenue court recorded a finding in his absence and sent it back to the Civil Court, An application was made by the defendant in the revenue court for setting aside the finding. As the revenue court had already sent the file, I am told it passed no orders on the application, and thereafter an application was made before the learned Munsif for setting aside the finding. It was onthis latter application that the Munsif has set aside the finding in exercise of his powers underSection 151, Civil Procedure Code.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Obviously the order passed by the learned Munsif is without jurisdiction. When the issue was referred to the revenue court and the re...
Joti Prasad Upadhya Vs. Kalka Prasad Bhatnagar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All128
Mathur, J. 1. This is an appeal by Joti Prasad Upadyaya under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act against the order of the Tribunal dismissing the election petition moved by him under Section 81 of the Act calling in question the election of Kalka Prasad Bhatnagar, respondent No. 1, as member of the U. P. Legislative Council from the U. P. (West) Graduates Constituency. The election was held in the year 1960 to fill in two vacancies, The appellant and respondent No. 1 along with three others were candidates for election to the vacancies; and Kalka Prasad Bhatnagar, respondent No. 1, and Shyamanarayana, respondent No. 2, were duly elected having secured the maximum number of votes.2. The election of Kalka Prasad Bhatnagar alone is challenged on the ground that he was holding an office of profit under the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh (to he referred hereinafter as the State Government), and under Article 191 of the Constitution of India was disqualified to b...
Prem Lal Singhania Vs. U.P. Government
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All233
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. These are two connected second appeals by a plaintiff from the decision of the learned Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, dismissing his two suits for recovery of damages or compensation from the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The facts which have led upto these appeals are these. The plaintiff, Prem Lal Singhania, was the owner of a motor truck and a Chevrolet motor car. On 12-1-1948 the District Magistrate of Gorakhpur, purporting to act under the powers delegated to him by the State Government under Section 9 of the U. P. Requisition of Motor Vehicles Act of 1947, passed an order requisitioning both these vehicles. The order required the plaintiff Singhania to place them at the disposal of the Superintendent of Police within 24 hours of the service of this order.According to the plaintiff, the order was illegal and unjustified as the essential conditions for the exercise of the requisitioning power did not exist and it was passed with the object of causing wrongful...
P.C. Dwadesh Shreni and Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, A-ward, Aliga ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR586(All)
This is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution. It appears that for the assessment year 1947-48 a demand was made upon the petitioner in respect of advance payment of income-tax under section 18A of the Income-tax Act. Admittedly, the petitioner paid no amount in respect of this demand. The petitioner took the view that it was not necessary to make payments as certain amounts were refundable to him by the income-tax department out of the amounts paid in the years preceding the assessment year 1947-48. In the assessment form, which is annexure 'B' to the affidavit accompanying the petition, the petition, the total tax demand against the petitioner including income-tax and super-tax for 1947-48 was worked out at Rs. 35,792-5-0. Credit was given to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 7,415-5-0 as well as for a sum of Rs. 359 as interest on the aforesaid sum which was refundable to the petitioner. Thereafter the tax demand was reduced to Rs. 28,038. As admittedly no amount was p...
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company, Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1961
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ724All
V.G. Oak, J.1. This writ petition is directed against an award of the labour court, Meerut.2. The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company, Ltd., Delhi, is the petitioner. Shyam Sunder Lal, who is the opposite party 3 in the writ petition, was an employee of the petitioner. One tractor belonging to the petitioner was sold to one Shiv Narain of Meerut. The company took the view that Shyam Sunder Lal's conduct in connexion with the sale of the tractor was highly objectionable. Two charges were framed against Shyam Sunder Lal. The first charge was, that he delivered one fuel pump and a self-starter along with the tractor, although these two parts were not to be Bold along with the tractor. Shyam Sunder Lal acted in the transaction dishonestly. Secondly, on 15 April 1959, be permitted several workmen to go on holiday without prior permission from either the general manager or the deputy general manager. An enquiry into the two charges was made by a committee. The committee found against Shyam...
Zaibunnisa Vs. Nazim Hasan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1952All197
Mukerji, J. 1. This is a special appeal brought on a permission granted by a learned single Judge to appeal to a Division Bench. The case raised interesting questions of Mohammdan Law.2. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, filed a suit for possession of certain properties and for mesne profits. The plaintiff's case was that she was the sister of one Mohammadi' Bibi, who had become a full owner of the properties in suit after the death of her husband. Hamid All and that subsequently Mohammadi Bibi, died leaving the plaintiff as her sole heir. The plaintiff laid claim to the properties which were in the possession of Mohammadi Bibi and she challenged the right of the defendants to have mutation of their names in respect of the said properties or to continue in possession thereof.3. Mohammadi Bibi was, as noticed above, the wife of Hamid Ali and on Hamid Ali's death she appears to have retained possession of the properties in lieu of her dower debt. On Mohammadi Bibi's death, w...
Kunmun Singh Vs. Ram Sewak
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All299
Desai, C.J.1. This is an application by a defendant in revision of a decree passed by a Civil Judge on appeal. The suit was filed by the opposite party against the applicant on 28-2-56 for recovery o Rs. 1700 and odd, and was dismissed by the trial court on 20-9-58. The opposite party filed an appeal and the appellate court allowed it on 13-4-60 and decreed the suit. This application was filed on 15-7-60 for revision of the decree of the appellate court.2. Prior to 1954 the law was (vide Section 102, C. P. C.) that a second appeal would lie in a suit 'cognizable by Courts of Small Causes when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit'exceeded Rs. 500/-. Admittedly the present suit was of the nature cognizable by a court of small causes, and since the amount of the subject-matter exceeded Rs. 500/- a second appeal was maintainable according to the law in force prior to 1954- In 1954 the State Legislature passed an Act increasing the limit of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2000/-;...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›