Allahabad Court December 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.
Avinash Kumar Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ706
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J.1. This is a Criminal Reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Muzaffarnagar with the recommendation that the order dated 26-6-1962 of the Magistrate be set aside and he be directed to furnish copies of the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. to the accused person.2. Chamanlal Nagpal made a report with the police of district Saharanpur alleging that the applicant, Srimati Avinash Kaur had committed offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409, I.P.C. The offences were investigated by the police but no chargesheet was submitted. Thereafter Chamanlal Nagpal moved a criminal complaint before the Magistrate at Saharanpur which has since been transferred to Muzaffarnagar. The complaint is at present pending for hearing before Sri P. C. Misra, Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarnagar.3. Srimati Avinash Kaur wanted to utilise the statement recorded by the police under S. 161, Gr. P. C. for cross-examining the complainant and his witnesses and wi...
Chhotey Lal and anr. Vs. Har Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All82
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal from the decree for their ejectment passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Etawah. The facts are these. The plaintiff-respondent Har Prasad alleged in his plaint that he was the landlord or shop and had Eet it out on rent to the defendants Chotey Lal and Daya Ram that they had not paid any rent for about two years in spite of a notice of demand ana had made willful default; that the plaintiff had terminated their tenancy after serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and filed the present suit for their ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent 2. Bath the defendants resisted the suit and denied the plaintiff's title. They alleged that he was not owner of the shop which really belonged to one Smt. Ram Devi and that they were Ram Devi's tenants and derived their title from her. According to the defendants, Har prasad had merely acted as the Mukhtar-e-Am of Smt. Ram Devi but had usurped the title of the owner. Du...
Basant Lal Katyal Vs. Boora Ram Kapoor and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All568
B.D. Gupta, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 120/- as arrears of rent together with mesne profits, as also for possession by ejectment of the defendant from the premises in sun which has been described as No. 1488, Hing Ki Mandi, Agra. There is no controversy between the parties that the plaintiffs were the land-lords of the property of which the defendant-appellant was the tenant and that a valid notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant had been served upon the defendant. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendant had fallen in arrears whereafter a notice demanding payment of arrears was served upon the defendant, but the defendant did not comply with the notice and had, therefore, rendered himself liable to ejectment at the suit of the plaintiffs.The defence was that the defendant-appellant was not in arrears in respect of the amount demanded by the plaintiffs from the defendant under the notice of demand, the asserti...
Har Prasad Vs. Mst. Ram Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All64
S.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is a defendants' second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for a declaration of her title as owner of the shop and for recovery of possession in case she was found out of it. The plaintiff Smt. Ram Devi is the sister of defendant Har Prasad and the dispute is about the ownership of a shop in Jaswantnagar. She alleged in her plaint that her father Jwala Prasad had four sons, Har Prasad the defendant, Beni Prasad, Tribeni Prasad, and Gur Prasad, and three daughters, Maha Devi, Sukh Devi, and Ram Devi the plaintiff. In 1918 one of the sons, Beni Prasad, filed a suit for partition as a result of which the shop in dispute became the separate property of her lather. In 1927 he executed a deed of gift in her favour donating this shop and other properties. She appointed her own brother the defendant Har Prasad, as her Mukhtar-e-Am for the management of these properties, but he played her false and began to ...
industrial and Commercial Service Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC299(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, made at the instance of the assessee, calling for an answer of this Court on the question:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the word 'books' used in Section 4 would include the diaries sold by the applicants2. In this case we are concerned with the assessment for 1949-50. The same question is raised in the two connected references which are made at the instance of the same assessee and are for the next two assessment years.3. The assessee is a dealer in books, stationery and diaries and has been assessed to sales tax in the three assessment years on turnovers which include proceeds of sale of diaries. Under Section 3 of the Act sales tax is payable in an assessment year on a turnover, i.e., the aggregate of proceeds of sale of goods by a dealer. Section 4 (as it stood then) exempts proceeds of sale of 'water, salt, foodgrains, milk, gur, electrical...
inderjit Singh Vs. Sahu Chheda Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All359
ORDERS.C. Manchanda, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Civil Judge, Bijnor dated the 29th of August, 1960 allowing the application for review and ordering the reopening of the case for a fresh hearing and setting aside the earlier judgment and decree dated the 30th August, 1958.2. The short question which arises is whether the Court had jurisdiction to direct in a review application that the whole case be reopened and If it had the jurisdiction whether such jurisdiction was exercised with material irregularity or illegality.3. There cannot be any question, in view of Rule 8 of Order 47 of the C. P. C., that the Court had the jurisdiction to rehear the entire case. Rule 8 reads :'When an application for review is granted, a note thereof shall be made in the register and the Court may at once re-hear the case or make such order in regard to the re-hearing as it thinks fit.'The language is couched in the widest possible terms and the matter is left to the discretio...
Ram Yagya and anr. Vs. Jagannath Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1962
Reported in: AIR1965All64
S.C. Manchanda, J.1. This is First Appeal from the Order of the learned Civil Judge, Allahabad dated the 4th December 1959 dismissing the application filed under Order XLI Rule 19 read with Section 151 of the C. P. C. thereby refusing to restore the appeal of the defendant-petitioner dismissed for default.2. The counsel for the appellant was admittedly busy in arguing a case in another court when notice of the appeal was served on him. The counsel totally forgot to note down the date in his diary and thereafter the information which had been conveyed to him completely slipped out of his memory. Consequently, neither he nor the appellant appeared on the date of the hearing, and the respondent having appeared the appeal was dismissed for default of the appellant under Order XLI Rule 17 of the C. P. C. After the expiry of 30 days, which is the period of limitation prescribed under Article 168 of the Indian Limitation Act for readmission of an appeal dismissed for default, the present appl...
Sarshwati Bai Vs. the Allahabad Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All546
B. Dayal, J. 1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution which has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court because he was of the opinion that the decision in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1247 of 1956, D/- 1-10-1958, (All), Vinayakdatt Tewari v. Shom Nath Pathak, did not lay down good law. That being the decision of a learned single Judge it was thought proper to refer the matter to a Division Bench.2. The facts which have given rise to this application are very short. The respondent Allahabad Bank Ltd. filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge Kanpur which came up for hearing before the II Addl. Civil Judge, Kanpur. This was suit No. 136 of 1960. The plaint in the case was written in English language. The defendant filed an application before the Court praying that English not being the language of the court under R. 15 of the General Rules (Civil), the plaint was liable to be rejected. This application was dismissed by the Court below r...
Ram Raj and ors. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All588; 1963CriLJ597
N.U. Beg, J.1. This application under Article 227 of theConstitution of India has been made by three persons, viz., Ram Raj, Ram Prasad and Jot Narain. The three applicants were arrayed as accused persons in a complaint filed by one Smt. Jagdei under Sections 323, 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code before the Nyaya Panchayat, Naubasta, district Gonda. During the pendency of this complaint before the Nyaya Panchayat the three applicants made an application underSection 85 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gonda, for the transfer of the case from the said Panchayat. On the 3rd of June, 1957, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gonda passed a stay order directing that proceedings in the Nyaya Panchayat should be stayed. The stay order has not been filed by any of the parties in these proceedings. It is, however, agreed before us that such a stay order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gonda.The petitioner's case is that on the same date i. e., th...
Lalloo Pd. Vs. Kedarnath Shukla and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ543
Kailash Prasad, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal.2. Mahadeo Prasad filed a complaint against Dr. Kedarnath Shukla on the allegations that the complainant had taken a shop on rent from Dr. Shukla at the rate of Rs. 5/-per mensem which was subsequently raised to Rs. 8/- per mensem, On 29th August, 1960 at about 5 p.m. Dr. Shukla came to the shop of the complainant and asked him to vacate it. The complainant refused to do so. Thereupon Dr. Shukla forcibly took away the key of the shop. The complainant then locked the door of the shop and went to the police station to lodge a report. When he returned from the police station, he found that Dr. Shukla was putting another lock at the shop. The complainant protested against this conduct of Dr. Shukla, but the latter did not pay any heed to it Next morning, that is on 30th August, 1950 at about 8 a.m. the complainant came to the shop and wanted to open it, but the accused was standing at the shop with two or three associates...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »