Allahabad Court February 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.
Mahmood Muzaffar Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All127; 1963CriLJ275
ORDERK.B. Asthana, J. 1. This is an application by one Sheikh Mahmood Muzaffar praying that he be enlarged on bail pending his trial before the court of Session at Meerut on charges under sections 302/120B/109 of Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution case the applicant entered into a conspiracy with certain other persons, who have also Been committed to stand their trial, to murder one Lala Jai Prakash and in pursuance of that conspiracy the said Lala Jai Prakash was shot at on 30th October 1961 at 6 or 6.30 p.m. in the village Rasulpur Dhaulari, police station Jani. A first information report of the incident was lodged by oneHari Krishen Das in which it was stated that one Mohammad Umar alias Bucha and two others shot at Lala Jai Prakash and they would be identified by the witnesses in the light of the lantern burning there. It appears that the said report was lodged at about 8.15 P.M. on the same date when Lala Jai Prakash was alive. It further appears that Lala Jai Prakash...
Juggi Lal Kamla Pat Vs. Ram Janki Gupta and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1962All407
Uniyal, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the IInd Civil Judge, Kanpur, dated 28-5-57 refusing to restore the suit dismissed for non-appearance of the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff firm filed a suit through its partner Sri Padampat Singhania tor recovery of Rs. 4,11,367/14/9 against the defendants on 18-5-53. The defendants filed written statements denying the claim and pleading a bar of limitation. Issues were struck on 1-2-54. Thereafter, several adjournments of the date fixed for hearing were made by the court, both suo motu and at the instance of the parties. Four such latter adjournments had been obtained by the defendants and three by the plaintiffs.3. On 8-12-55 the case was transferred to the file of the IInd Civil Judge, Kanpur, who eventually fixed 23-5-56 for final hearing of the suit. On 22-5-56 an application was filed by one P. C. Jain on behalf of the plaintiff for adjournment On the ground that the Plaintiff's senior counsel, Sri Rammath Seth, had gone to England and...
Shiv Kumar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All395; 1963CriLJ118
Kailash Prasad, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judgeof Aligarh recommending that the order of the Magistratedated 31st October, 1960 directing that the criminal casepending against Shiva Kumar and four others shall proceed,be Quashed.2. On 17-12-1957 Sri Shiva Kumar was elected president of the Municipal Board, Atrauli (district Aligarh). His rival candidate Sri Madan Mohan filed an election petition on 13-1-1958, challenging the election of Sri Shiva Kumar. The District Judge of Aligarh was appointed as Election Tribunal to dispose of the said petition. He decided the petition on 31-5-1958 and held that the election of Sri Shiva Kumar was invalid. He accordingly set aside the election. In its judgment the Election Tribunal observed that certain forgeries and other glaring irregularities were committed by Sri Shiva Kumar and others which should be thoroughly enquired into through the Criminal Investigation Department. In view of these observations, the State Govern...
Pandit Ram Hazari Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All422
S.D. Singh, J. 1. This special appeal arises out of suit No. 165 of 1954 of the Court of Munsif, Ramsanchighat. district Barabanki. The plaintiffs-respondents (to be referred to hereafter only as plaintiffs) filed the suit against the defendant-appellant (to be referred to hereafter as the defendant) for recovery of possession over a grove, about the identity of which there is no dispute.The plaintiffs claimed to be the representativesof one Ganeshi, who had mortgaged this grovewith possession with one Sita Ram under a mortgage-deed dated 20th June, 1873. There was a stipulation in the document that if the mortgagewas not redeemed by a certain date in 1882, the mortgage-deed would be deemed to be a sale deed and that Sita Ram would thereafter be entitled to retain the grove as a purchaser thereof. This stipulation has been held to be only by way of aclog on the equity of redemption, and the document has been held to be a usufructuary mortgage-deed, pure and simple.The mortgagee Sita Ra...
Ram Sahai and ors. Vs. Maiku and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All421
ORDERN.U. Beg, J. 1. This is a writ petition by four petitioners. The facts as stated by their learned counsel are that these petitioners filed objections under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. These objections were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer as well as by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), according to the statement of the learned counsel, is dated the 28th March, 1961. Against the said order the petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, a copy of which is filed as Annexure 5. No date is put down in the copy filed but the learned Counsel orally stated that the date of this petition was the 26th April, 1961. The Deputy Director of Consolidation having dismissed the revision, the petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the said order.2. The sole argument of the learned...
Nagar Mahapalika Vs. Afaq HusaIn Altaf HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1962All517
S.D. Singh, J.1. This appeal and criminal appeal No. 547 of 1961, raise the same question of law and were, therefore, heard together. Both the appeals have been filed by Nagar Mahapalika of the City of Lucknow. The Food Inspector obtained samples of ghee from two shops, one that of Afaq Husain on 13th December, 1957, and the other from the shop of Durga Prasad Ganga Ram, which was owned by Gangs Ram, on 1st October, 1951. At Afaq Hussain's shop the ghee was sold to the Food Inspector by his sales man, Sarfaraz Husain, and at the shop of Durga Prasad Ganga Ram by Matu Ram. These samples were sealed in three separate bottles in each case and one bottle was handed over to the person from whom the ghee was purchased. Notice in Form VI was prepared by the Food Inspector under Clause (a) of Subsection (1) of Section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, XXXVII of 1954. At Afaq Husain's shop the notice was addressed to Afaq Husain but was handed over to Sarfaraz Husain, who made an e...
District Co-operative Bank Vs. Its Employees
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1962
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ704All
A.P. Srivastava, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the circumstances which have led up to it are briefly these. The petitioner is a District Co-operative Bank at Gorakhpur. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 were its employees. According to the petitioner, respondent 3 was an accountant and manager while the other two respondents 4 and 5 were temporary servants. There being some charges against respondent 3, he was suspended pending enquiry into those charges. The services of respondents 4 and 5 were terminated. There is at Gorakpur a union known as the Uttar Pradesh bank employees' union. It took up the dispute which had arisen between the petitioner and respondents 3, 4 and 5 in connexion with their employment and grot it referred to the regional conciliation officer for conciliation. The attempt at conciliation did not fructify. Under Section 4K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, a reference was made in respect of that dispute to the labour ...
Baldeo Prasad Sita Ram Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax Cum-excess P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All101
Brijlal Gupta, J.1. This reference comes to us on a requisition made by this Court on an application under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act read with Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act. Three questions have been raised in the reference for the opinion of this Court. These questions are asfollows :1. Whether the partial partition of the assesses family and the formation of a firm is a transaction within the meaning of Section 10-A of the Excess Profits Tax Act. If the answer to the above is in the affirmative, 2. Whether there was any material for the finding of the Tribunal that the main purpose of the partial partition of the family and the formation of the new firm of Rama Silk House was the avoidance of the excess profits tax liability of the assesses family? If the answer to question (2) is in the affirmative then, 3. Whether in the circumstances of the present case and having regard to the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, the provisions of Sec...
Baldeo Prasad Sita Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1962
Reported in: [1963]47ITR729(All)
BRIJLAL GUPTA J. - This reference comes to us on a requisition made by this court on an application under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act read with section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act. Three questions have been raised in the reference for the opinion of this court. These questions are as follows :'(1) Whether the partial partition of the assessee family and the formation of a firm is a transaction within the meaning of section 10A of the Excess Profits Tax Act ?'If the answer to the above is in the affirmative,'(2) Whether there was any material for the finding of the Tribunal that the main purpose of the partial partition of the family and the formation of the new firm of Rama Silk House was the avoidance of the excess profits tax liability of the assessee family ?'If the answer to question No. 2 is in the affirmative then,'(3) Whether, in the circumstances of the present case and having regard to the provisions of sections 4 and 6 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, the provision...
Dina Nath Kapoor Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All133; 1963CriLJ282
ORDERJ.D. Sharma, J. 1. The applicant is a cycle dealer of Allahabad, At about 5 p.m. on the 18th November 1958 a search was made of his shop and four cycle frames bearing the name 'Herculeans', four cycle frames bearing the trade mam 'Philipines', one cycle frame bearing 'BSC' and three cycle seats bearing the name 'Brooks' were recovered. These trade marks were not the original trade marks of the various companies but had been made subsequently. 2. The case for the prosecution was that the trade marks were counterfeit and as the various articles were in the possession of the accused for sale he committed an offence under Section 486 I.P.C. 3. Both the courts below accepted the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the applicant to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 486 I.P.C. 4. The only contention urged on behalf of the applicant is that as it was not proved that the articles in question were not the manufacture of the various companies whose trade marks they bore, no off...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »