Allahabad Court April 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.
Mohan Lal Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All21
S.D. Singh, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for the aforesaid relief against his wife Shanti Devi and three others, two of whom are her parents. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the sole ground that the plaintiff has been out-casted and that there is a custom in the 'biradari' which entitles a wife to refuse to go to her husband, who has been out-casted. This custom was admitted by the plaintiff. In his statement on oath he clearly admitted. 'There is a custom in the 'biradari' that if a person is turned out of 'biradari', his wife can refuse to go and live with him,' Both the Courts below have held that Shanti Devi is entitled to refuse to submit herself to the conjugal rights of the plaintiff on account of this custom and the suit has consequently been dismissed.2. Reliance was placed on behalf of the plaintiff on Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which says:...
Mazhar HusaIn and ors. Vs. Sahu Jagdeshwar Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All191
B. Dayal, J. 1. This is an application under Article 133(1)(a) and (c) of the Constitution for a certificate either that the case fulfils the requirements of Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution or in the alternative that the case is fit one for appeal to be Supreme Court.2. The proceedings out of which this application has arisen had a very chequered career. Only the very relevant facts may be briefly stated. The applicants were judgment-debtors in a decree passed under Order 34. Rule 5. C. P. C. dated the 23rd of October, 1935 for more than rupees twenty seven thousand. On the 6th of November, 1941, the decree was put in execution. The judgment-debtors applied for amendment of the decree under the U. P. Debt Redemption Act. On the 26th of January, 1942, further proceedings in execution were stayed till the disposal of that application. The judgment-debtors contended that the decree had been fully satisfied. The decree-holders filed their objection to the application. Some orders wer...
Messrs. GraIn Chamber Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR217(All)
BRIJLAL GUPTA J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The question which has been referred to us for opinion is as follows :'Whether the litigation expenses incurred by the assessee in defending the civil suits field by its members after the business of the assessee company in speculative transactions in gur was stopped on account of the ban imposed by the Government by notification dated February 15, 1950, published in the Government Gazette is a permissible deduction within the meaning of clause (xv) of sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'The reference relates to three assessment years 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55. The facts giving rise to the reference are these. The assessee is a company. The business of the company was to act as a clearing house for forward and speculative transactions in gur carried on by its members. The company acted as principal to principal in transactions with its own members and when acting as clearing ho...
Onkar Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1962
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ3All
A.P. Srivastava, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was employed in February 1944 as inspector in the central Excise Department. He was subsequently transferred to the Harijan Sahayak Department and appointed to a gazetted post of group officer subject to the approval of the Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh. He was approved by the Commission and was appointed to the permanent and pensionable post of manager, Kalyanpur settlement, Kanpur. He was subsequently transferred to the head office, Lucknow, as Harijan Welfare Officer, headquarters. In May 1952 the audit of the accounts at the Kalyanpur settlement showed that some both had been sold at the rates different from the approved rates. A chargesheet in that connexion was served on the petitioner on 12 August 1966. He submitted his explanation and an enquiry was held. The enquiry officer found the charges established and recommended the removal of the petitioner. The recommendation was ...
Tufail Ahmad Vs. Jamila Khatun
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1962
Reported in: AIR1962All570
Mukerji, J. 1. This second appeal has been referred to a Bench for decision by the Chief Justice as a learned single Judge asked for such a decision because of the importance of the question of law involved in the case.2. Jamila Khatoon, the plaintiff, was married to Tufail Ahmed, the defendant, sometime in the year 1935. In 1947 it appears that matrimonial bickerings started between the husband and wife. In 1948 the plaintiff-wife left her husband and went to live with her brother. In November, 1948, there was a complaint under Section 498 of the Indian penal Code by the husband and in this complaint the husband apparently made an allegation of unchastity against the wife. Subsequent to the complaint mentioned above, which was dimissed, the husband filed a suit in 1948 for restitution of conjugal rights. In this suit the husband unequivocally retracted the allegation which he had, apparently stupidly, made against the wife in the 498, Indian Penal Code proceedings. The suit for restit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›