Allahabad Court October 1962 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.
Gyanandra Vir Singh Vs. the Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All596
ORDERV.G. Oak, J.1. The question raised in this writ petition is whether the petitioner has passed a certain University examination.2. The petitioner appeared at the LL. B. Previous Examination of Allahabad University in 1960, and was successful in that examination. He appeared for the LL. B. Final Examination in 1961, but failed in the examination. He appeared for the LL. B. Final . Examination again in 1962. The University authorities declared that he failed in the 1962 examination also. The petitioner's contention is that he has actually passed the LL. B. Final examination held in 1962. Hence this writ petition.3. The Assistant Registrar of Allahabad University has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent. According to the counter affidavit, the respondent's decision about the petitioner's failure in the LL. B. Examination is correct.4. The petitioner had to appear for eight papers in his LL. B. Final Examination. The marks obtained by him in the previous papers have been...
Reoti Prasad and anr. Vs. Hotilal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All233
Srivastava, J. 1. This second appeal has come to us on a reference made by Mr. Justice Manchanda. The second appeal is by the plaintiffs. There were two plaintiffs Sri Reoti Prasad and Sri Nand Kishore. The suit was filed against three sets of defendants. The first set consisted of only one person L. Hoti Lal. The second set consisted of four persons Allahdiya, Ibrahim, Niyaz Mohammad and Ali Mohammad. The third set consisted of a person named Ganga Sahai. The land in dispute was situated in Mohalla Saral Mehar Singh alias Nai Basti in the town of Khurja and bore municipal No. 49. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of the land and originally Khuda Baksh, the ancestor of that defendants second set, had on certain terms constructed a house on the land. They further alleged that in the year 1916 the father of the plaintiff No. 1 who was the owner of the land at that time filed a suit in the Small Cause Court for recovery of rent from Khuda Baksh and some of the defendants se...
Kailash Nath Vs. Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All241
Desai, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from an order of our brother S.D. Singh refusing the appellant permission to appeal as a pauper on the ground that the judgment under appeal was not contrary to law or some usage having force of law or otherwise erroneous or unjust. The preliminary question that arises is whether the order is a judgment within the meaning of Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of Rules of Court. This special appeal is filed only under that provision ant. would be maintainable only if it is from a judgment and not a mere order. Under Order XLIV, Rule 1, when an application for leave to appeal as a pauper is made the Court is required to reject it unless upon a perusal there of and of the judgment and decree appealed from it saw reason to think that the decree was contrary to law of to some usage having the force of law or was otherwise erroneous or unjust. Whatever our learned brother did by the impugned order was to carry out that provision; he rejected that application as he was requ...
Ram Piari and anr. Vs. Ram Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All599
B.D. Gupta, J.1. This is a defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit for possession over a plot of land by demolition of certain constructions made thereon by some of the defendants.2. There is no controversy that one Brijnath constituted a joint Hindu family along with his three sons, Ram Nath, plaintiff-respondent, and Prem Lal who was arrayed as defendant No. 1, and one Lakshmi Nath who was not impleaded in the suit. Brijnath had died and, in the year 1946, the position was that the family consisted of the three sons described above. On the 18th July, 1946 Prem Lal sold a specific portion of a plot of land, consisting of the northern portion thereof, to one Barhma Devi with the recital that this property was Prem Lal's separate property allotted to him as a result of partition between himself and other members of the family. By successive transfers the property ultimately came into the hands of Smt. Ram pyari and Kamla Devi who were arrayed as defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the su...
Tika Ram and Sons (Private) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR403(All)
This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution directed against the order of the Income-tax Officer dated the 27th of July, 1962, whereby the Income-tax Officer considered that he was competent to proceed to make an assessment on the company for the assessment year 1958-59 notwithstanding that some liquidation proceedings had intervened and had terminated in a scheme sanctioned by this court. A writ of prohibition is also prayed for directing the Income-tax Officer not to make the assessment against the petitioner for the assessment year 1958-59.The material facts leading up to this petition are these : The petitioner, Tika Ram and Sons, is a private limited company (hereinafter referred to as the company). A notice under section 22 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was served on the petitioner in respect of the year 1958-59 and the company in compliance therewith filed a return of its income on the 17th of July, 1958. While these as...
Ramchandra Gupta Vs. the Kanpur Iron Scrap Merchants Association Ltd. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All45
K.B. Asthana, J.1. This is a first appeal from order against an order of the learned District Judge, Kanpur requiring the parties to carry out the terms of a compromise alleged to have been arrived at between the parties in a case in respect of the rectification of register of members under Section 155 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956.2. The appellant Ram Chandra Gupta had in an auction in execution of a decree against one Sardar Pratap Singnpurchased five shares of the respondent company. He then applied under Section 155 of the Act for entering his name on the register of members of the company. This application was opposed by the respondent company mainly on the ground that under the rules of the company a stranger had no right to purchase the shares of the company. There is no further amplification of this plea on the record. Further it appears that the parties tried to amicably settle the matter and Ram Chandra Gupta the appellant seems to have agreed to transfer the shares in th...
Mst. Nafisul Nissa Vs. Haji Mohammad Ishaq
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All235
Desai, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of our brother S. D. Singh passed in a first appeal from. order passed by a Civil Judge under Order XLI, C. P. C. allowing an appeal and remanding the suit to the Munsif for re-trial after allowing the plaint to be amended in a certain manner. This appeal has been filed without special leave from S. D. Singh, J. 2. Sri Naziruddin conceded, and rightly conceded, that this appeal would be maintainable, if at all, under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of Rules of Court. An appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 filed as a matter of right i.e., without special leave of the Judge from whose order it is filed, is maintainable only if it is an appeal from a judgment and if the judgment was not passed by the learned Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a subordinate Court. We find that the order under appeal passed by our learned brother was not a judgment, because it d...
Maharaja Pateshwari Prasad Singh Vs. Aditya Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All398
S.D. Singh, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal arising outof proceedings for execution of decree No. 23 of 1933under Order XXXIV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.The final decree under the aforesaid rule was passed bythe Civil Judge, Gonda on 27th February, 1943. Two of the defendants filed Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1943, which was admitted on 10th July, 1943, and notice directed to be issued against the respondents. Later, however, it was reported that there was a deficiency of Rs. 668/8/- in court fee and the appellant was required to make up the same. On 14th November, 1944, the appellant's Counsel made a statement in Court that it was not proposed to matte good the deficiency in court-fee and the appeal was accordingly dismissed 'in default of prosecution'. It may also be mentioned at this very place that while the appeal was pending, execution proceedings were stayed on 11th November, 1944 (1943?). This interim order was modified on 24th April, 1944. While execution was allo...
Someshwar Vs. Barkat Ullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All469
S.D. Singh, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of suit No. 514 of 1945 of the Court of Munsif, East, Allahabad. The suit was filed by three persons Hamid Ali, Barkat Ullah and Nawab Hasan. There are two defendants in the suit, Someshwar and his father Kallu.2. What happened was that Hamid Ali, a Shia muslim, made a gift of the property in question in favour of Someshwar on 21st April, 1945. Later he executed a sale deed in respect of this very property along with some other on 6th September, 1945, in favour of Barkat Ullah and Nawab Hasan, plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the suit. Someshwar filed a suit for preemption on the basis of that sale deed in respect of property other than the one covered by the gift deed, that suit for pre-emption being suit No. 470 of 1946; and Hamid Ali, Barkat A!i and Nawab Hasan filed this suit, No. 514 of 1945, for the cancellation of the gift deed on the ground that it was revoked by Hamid Ali and for possession over the property, in case the plaintiff...
Raja Ram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All449
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. A notice was issued to the plaintiff by a Magistrate under Clause (3) of Section 18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 requiring him to demolish a portion of his building specified at the foot of the plaint. By a suit the plaintiff challenged the validity of the notice and claimed an injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing that portion of the plaintiff's building,2. The suit was contested on the ground that the notice was. valid and the plaintiff was not entitled to the Injunction claimed by him. A plea about Section 80, C.P. C. was also raised. All the pleas raised by the defendant except two were overruled by the trial Court. It held in favour of the defendant that the notice issued under Section is of the Indian Electricity Act was valid and that an injunction as claimed by the plaintiff could not be granted under Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act. On these findings it dismissed the suit.3. The plaintiff went up in appeal to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »