Allahabad Court November 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.
Bafati Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All106; 1964CriLJ327
D.S. Mathur, J.1. This is a Revision application by Bafati against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Fatehpur dismissing his appeal and thereby maintaining his conviction and sentence of an offence punishable under Section 8 of the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act (to be referred hereinafter as the Act) for contravention of Section 9 thereof.2. The prosecution case is that on 5-9-1961 Sub-Inspector Kaip Nath Singh of police station Khaga received information that the applicant was coming to Khaga to sell beef as usual. On receipt of the information Sub-Inspector accompanied by police constables and a few witnesses proceeded to the north of the bus stand situate on Naubasta Road, and after they had covered a distance of one furlong they saw the applicant coming from the opposits direction on a bicycle with a bundle tied to its carrier on seeing the police party the applicant threw his bicycle and ran away. In spite of the chase he could not be arrested. The bundle was s...
Sunlight Chemical Works Vs. District Magistrate, Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All592
Katju, J.1. This petition came before our brother Mukerji. He, however, directed that it should be laid before a larger Bench, and, therefore, it has come before us.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of disinfectants on the first floor of 84, Kanpur Road, Lucknow. The partners of the aforesaid firm are Sri Suraj Prakash. Vohra and Sri Trilok Vohra, who are real brothers.3. It is alleged that the aforesaid partners carried on their business since 1933 and eventually they shifted to the premises in dispute from where the aforesaid partnership business was carried on. The two partners, subsequently occupied separate residential accommodation in Lucknow. Sri Tri-lok Vohra lived in 23-C, Singar Nagar,' Lucknow, while Sri Suraj Prakash Vohra lived separately in Ashiq Ali Building. It appears that the premises in dispute, viz., No. 84, Kanpur Road, Lucknow were sought to be allotted by the Area Rationing Officer. On 5th of June, 1961, the Area Rationing Officer s...
Mohd. Azmat Azim Khan Vs. Raja Shatrunjai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All230
Desai, C.J.1. I concur in the order proposed by my brother Ramabhadran. It was conceded by the applicant's counsel that be could succeed only if his case was covered by the provision of Section 4 (2) of the Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act. Section 14 of the En-cumbered Estates Act requires a Special Judge to examine every claim and to determine the amount due, if any, from the mortgagor to the claimant and to pass a simple money decree having regard also to the provisions of Section 3 of the U. P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act for the amount found due to the mortgagee or a decree for costs in fevour of the mortgagor in case no amount is found due and to certify the amount, if any, of the former decree not legally recoverable otherwise than out of the compensation and rehabilitation grant payable to him. The effect of such a decree passed by a Special Judge is, as provided in Section 18,'to extinguish the previously existing rights, i f any, of the claimant, together with all rights, if a...
Bhukan Lal Vs. Ishwar Dayal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All587
Takru, J.1. This revision by the decree-holder under Section 115 C. P. C. is directed against a judgment and decree of tha learned Civil Judge, Moradabad, whereby he upheld in appeal, a judgment and decree of a learned Munsif of that plac'e, dismissing the execution application filed by the applicant.2. It appears that the applicant obtained a money decree against the opposite party from the Court of the Judge, Small Causes. He got that decree transferred to the Court of Munsif, as he wanted to realise his amount by the attachment and sale of the opposite-party's immovable property, and some immovable property of the latter was also attached. Thereupon the judgment-debtor filed objections, inter alia, on the ground that having regard to the amended provisions of Section 42 C. P. C. the learned Munsif did not have the power to attach immovable 'property for execution of the decree of the Court of judga Small Causes. The objection found favour with the Executing Court and the execution a...
Charan Singh and ors. Vs. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All42; [1963(6)FLR70]
Dwivedi, J. 1. These six petitioners proceed on similar facts and raise similar questions of law; accordingly they are being decided by a single judgment.2. In all these petitions the petitioners challenge the legality of the acquisition by the State Government of certain agricultural plots situate in the village Begambad in the Tahsil of Ghaziabad in the district of Meerut, of which they are the tenure holders. By the notification dated January 27, 1961, issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the State Government notified for general information that those plots were needed for a public purpose, that is to say the construction of an 'Employees State Insurance Corporation Hospital at Modinagar.' The notification is coupled with an order under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 directing that the provisions of Section 5-A of the said act would not apply. This notification was followed by another notification of the State Government under Section 6 of the Act, d...
Rehtu Ram Vs. Karam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All208
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a landlord's second appeal from the decision of the Additional Civil Judge Muzaffarnagar dismissing his suit for ejectment, of his tenant. The plaintiff Rehatu Ram was the landlord of a house which wasoccupied by several tenants including the defendant Karam Singh. The landlord lived in a part of this house. He needed additional accommodation for his personal use and obtained the permission of the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act to file a suit for the ejectment of two tenants other than Karam Singh but they challenged the decision by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court and consequently the permission remained ineffective for several years. Despairing of getting an early decision, ne filed another application under Section 3 of the Act for the ejectment of the defendant Karam Singh on the same ground namely, his personal needs.Permission was granted by the Rent Control and Evict...
Dalip Chand and ors. Vs. the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All46
Jagadish Sahai, J.1. Dalip Chand and Ramdin have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the following allegations.2. Dalip Chand was the owner of a rickshaw the number of which is 2462. He holds a driver's licence for the said rickshaw for the current year 1962-63. He, however, had no driver's licence for the year 1961-62. On the night between the 12th and 13th of June, 1961, he was detected by the police driving the rickshaw without a licence and was detained and taken in police custody for the same. The rickshaw was also taken by the police in its custody. Dalip Chand and Ramdin were later on prosecuted and sentences to pay a fine of Rs. 6/- each by a Magistrate. By means of this petition the validity of bye-laws Nos. 3(f)11 and 12(a) of the Lucknow Municipal Board have been challenged. There is also a prayer that the fine paid by the petitioners be refunded to them. There is, however, no prayer for the quashing of the order convicting and sentencing th...
Baijnath Vs. Ramadhar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All214
Desai, C.J.1. This case has been referred to a larger bench on account of a conflict among decisions on the question whether standing sisham and nim trees are standing timber within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Registration Act.2. One Shanker Bux Singh was the owner of plots of land situated by the side of a District Board road. Sisham and nim trees stood on the plots of land. Shankar Bux Singh sold out of them25 Sisham and 2 nim trees to the appellant. (Only the trees were sold and not the land on which they stood.) In the sale deed the vendor simply stated that he had sold the trees for Rs. 100/- to the appellant; nothing was said about the trees being cut or allowed to remain standing on the land, or about any right granted to the appellant to tend them, and the appellant was not required to remove them within certain tune. The District Board, claiming to be the owner of the trees --because they stood by the road side -- sold one of the sisam trees to the respondents and they ...
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. T.R. Kalia, Asst. Br. Manager and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All351
S.N. Katju, J. 1. I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.2. It appears that the fitness certificate of the opposite-parties' vehicle was to expire on the 19th January, 1961. As the vehicle was expected to be at Lucknow near about 24th January, 1961, for servicing, an application was made to the Regional Transport Authority praying for fixing some date after the 19th of January, 1961, for the-examination of the vehicle for obtaining a fresh fitness certificate. It appears that the Technical Inspector of the Reginal Transport Office, Lucknow, in substance allowed the application and directed that the vehicle may be produce for inspection before 9 A.M. on the 24th of January, 1961. Before the vehicle could be produced for inspection, it was checked on the 21st of January, 1961, while it was going from Unnao side towards Kanpur. The fitness certificate was checked and according to the Transport Authorities, it was found that it had expired on the 19th January...
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. T.R. Kalla, Asst. Sr. Manager and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ6
S.N. Katju, J.1. I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.2. It appears that the fitness certificate of the opposite-parties' vehicle was to expire on the 19th January, 1961. As the vehicle was expected to be at Lucknow near about 24th January, 1961, for servicing, an application was made to the Regional Transport Authority praying for fixing some date after the 19th of January, 1961, for the examination of the vehicle for obtaining a fresh fitness certificate. It appears that the Technical Inspector of the Reginal Transport Office, Lucknow, in substance allowed the application and directed that the vehicle may be produced for inspection before 9 A.M. on the 24th of January, 1961. Before the vehicle could be produced for inspection, it was checked on the 21st of January, 1961, while it was going from Unnao side towards Kanpur. The fitness certificate was checked and according to the Transport Authorities, It was found that it had expired on the 19th January...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »