Allahabad Court January 1963 Judgments
Parmeshwar Dayal Vs. the Addl. Commr. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All7
Desai, C.J.1. Mathur, J., has referred to a larger bench the question,'Is the order of the District Magistrate and also of the Commissioner and the State Government invalid simply because they did not take into consideration the needs of the tenant?'and this bench has been constituted to answer it. My answer to the question is emphatic 'No'.2. There was slight controversy on the question whether the Commissioner considered the needs of the petitioner tenant, but we are not concerned with that controversy because the whole petition has not been referred to this bench. It will be for Mathur, J., to decide whether the petitioner's needs were considered by the Commis--sioner or not; we have to answer simply the question whether he was required to consider them.3. The question is with reference to the jurisdictions to be exercised by the District Magistrate, the Commissioner and the State Government under section 3 (1), 3 (3) and 7-F respectively of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and...
Tag this Judgment!Magan Devi Vs. State Transport Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All19
Bhargava, J. 1. This is an appeal by Smt. Magan Devi against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing her petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which she had challenged an order of the State Transport Authority (Tribunal), Uttar Pradesh.2. The appellant was one of the applicants for a permit tor running a stage carriage on Moradabad -- Kashipur route. She presented an application accompanied by answers to a questionnaire that had been issued by the Regional Transport Authority and an affidavit in support of the answers to the questionnaire. The Regional Transport Authority sanctioned a permit in favour of the appellant. One other applicant was Kali Charan Singh, respondent No. 3 in this special appeal. His application for grant of a permit was rejected. Kali Charan Singh, therefore, appealed to the State Transport Authority (Tribunal). The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Aulhority granting the permit to the app...
Tag this Judgment!Basantlal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC395(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. The Judge (Revisions) referred to this Court under Section 11(1) the following questions for its opinion.(1) Whether the appellate court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeals on the ground that the Additional Judge (Appeals) of Kanpur Range at Agra had not been validly appointed ?(2) Whether the materials on the record were such as to justify the assessment of the applicants on turnover during the years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 as determined in the orders passed on the application for revision ?2. The questions have been referred at the instance of the assessee who carried on business in bricks, agricultural implements, iron goods, paints etc. The question referred is for the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53. The assessee did not produce any account books and did not appear before the Sales Tax Officer during the assessment proceedings and the Sales Tax Officer assessed it in default. Later the assessment order was set aside on appeal and the Sales Ta...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Nandan Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All139; 1964CriLJ378
1. This appeal and connected Government Appeal No. 693 of 1961 arise out of Sessions Trial No. 5 of 1960 in which two persons, Nagina of village Sipaya and Sheonandan of village Iswapur in Bihar, were tried for offences under Section 120-B and 396, I. P. C. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, acquitted Nagina, but convicted Sheonandan under both the provisions and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under Section 396 and to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 120-B, I. P. C. He has, therefore, come up in appeal against his conviction and sentence as aforesaid, while the State of Uttar Pradesh has filed the appeal against the acquittal of Nagina, for the aforesaid offences. These two appeals were heard together and we propose to deal with both of them in the same judgment.2. A daring dacoity took place at about 8.30 P. M. on 2nd February, 1959, in a second class compartment in 216-Down train of the North Eastern Railway between Lakshmiganj and Ramkola railway stations....
Tag this Judgment!Sughra Begum and ors. Vs. Qasim Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All120
S.D. Singh, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is a judgment-debtor against whom a decree was passed oh 3rd Jan. 1949. The last application for execution was moved on 2nd Jan. 1961, and the contention of the appellant was that it was barred by time. The application would be barred by time, if two earlier application moved on 3rd Jan. 1955, and 8th Feb. 1958, were barred by time. But if those applications were within time, even the last application would be within time. What has, therefore, to be seen is whether the aforesaid earlier applications dated 3rd Jan. 1955 and 8th Feb. 1958, were within time.2. The first application for execution was moved on 21st Dec. 1951. The second application dated 3rd, Jan. 1955, was, therefore, moved more than three years thereafter and the same was the case in respect of the third application, which was filed on 8th Feb. 1958. The Civil Judge has pointed out that Limitation for execution under Article 182 of the Limitation Act was raised from three year...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Srivastava Vs. Ghan Shyam Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All18
ORDERS.D. Singh, J.1. This is an application in revision arising out of a small cause suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The applicant was a tenant in an accommodation which belonged to Ghan Shyam Das, opposite party No. 1. The rent for July, August, September and October, 1961, not having been paid, Ghan Shyam Das filed the suit for the recovery of arrears of rent against the applicant Rule N. Srivastava and also against Amminuddin Siddiqi, opposite party No. 2, who is said to be a sub-tenant in the same accommodation. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but it was decreed in revision by the Additional District Judge, Allahabad.2. The point involved in the case is a simple one. The applicant's contention is that when he vacated the house on 1st July, 1961, he gave notice under Clause (a) of Subsection (1) of Section 7 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act to the District Magistrate. No notice for the determination of the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Rustam Glass Works
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All124; [1964]15STC631(All)
Pathak, J. 1. This is a statement of a casesubmitted by the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax for decision on the following question: 'Whether the second proviso of Section 8-A(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act placing a restriction upon the dealers to file a revision against the order of the Sales Tax Officer demanding security, only after depositing the amount of security demanded, offends against the fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and is an unreasonable restriction against the freedom of carrying on business, calling or profession and is ultra vires of the State Legislature?' 2. The respondent, M/s Rustam Glass Works, Ferozabad is a dealer in glass bangles. It was registered under Section 8-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, and the registration certificate was renewed for the year 1959-60. It appears that as it was heavily in arrears of sales tax, it was called upon to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- for the continuance of the registration certificate. Thissecurit...
Tag this Judgment!BaladIn Vs. Inspector General of Police, U.P., Lucknow and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1963All554; [1963(6)FLR186]; (1963)IILLJ101All
ORDERV.G. Oak, J. 1. This writ petition by a police official is directed against departmental proceedings that are pending against him. 2. The petitioner joined the police force as a constable in 1925. He was later promoted as a Head Constable. In September 1958 a case under Section 409, I. P. C., was registered against the petitioner and one Clerk-Constable, Surendra Singh. A final report was submitted on 5-5-1959. The petitioner applied for leave preparatory to retirement. But leave was not granted. He gave another application praying that pension may be granted. But he was not permitted to retire. On 2-3-1960 a charge-sheet was served upon him. Departmental proceedings are going on against the petitioner on the basis of that charge. The petitioner's contention is that, departmental proceedings cannot be conducted against him. Hence this writ petition. 3. The main contention of Mr. Iqbal Ahmad appearing for the petitioner is that, the petitioner has already retired from service under...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Prakash and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All95; 1964CriLJ319
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. These are twelve connected Criminal References made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, under Section 432 Cr. P. C., in which a common question of law is involved, the same being whether Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the Public Gambling Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) infringe Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The matter originally came before our brother Broome, who directed that it be heard by a larger Bench and that is how the matter has come before us.2. The Act is applicable to this State as also to those of Punjab, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh. By virtue of the provisions of Section 2 of the Act Sections 13 to 17 of the Act have been made applicable to all the areas in these States. So far as the remaining sections are concerned it is provided by that section that the Stata Governments concerned may by a notification in the State Gazette extend such of the remaining provisions as they consider appropriate to such areas in the...
Tag this Judgment!Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika Vs. NaraIn Das Haribansh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All25
Oak, J.1. This is an application under Sections 109(a) and 110 of the C. P. C., read with Article 135 of the Constitution for a certificate for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court.2. Messrs Narain Das Haribans Contractors filed against Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 60,802/4/9, in the year 1946. During the pendency of this suit the matter in dispute was referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator gave an award for a sum of Rs. 54,000/- and odd in favour of the plaintiff. Parties filed objections against the award. The objection filed by the plaintiff was not pressed. The objection filed by the defendant was allowed by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur by his order dated the 31st of May, 1960. He held that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation, and dismissed it with costs.3. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the order of the Additional Civil Judge, dated 31-5-1960. That was first appeal from order No. 330 of 1960. That first appeal from ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »