Allahabad Court January 1963 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.
Prabhulal Lal and ors. Vs. Babu Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All34
B.D. Gupta, J. 1. This is a decree-holder's second appeal against an appellate order whereby an appeal of the decree-holder against an order passed in execution by the executing Court was confirmed.2. The facts, briefly stated, are that a preliminary decree for sale on the basis of a mortgage was passed in favour of the decree-holder on 23-1-1946, whereunder the house in dispute in the execution proceedings giving rise to this appeal was to be sold. In view of the findings of the Court below there is no controversy before me now that the house in dispute constituted the residential house of the judgment-debtor who, at all times, has been an agriculturist. Before the passing of the final decree Section 60 of the C. P. C. was amended by the U. P. Legislature by the Code of Civil Procedure (United Provinces Amendmment) Act No. XXXV of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Amending Act. This Act came into force on 28-8-1948. Thereafter, on 6-8-1949 a final decree directing sale of the...
State of U.P. Vs. Dhanwan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All260; 1965CriLJ667
Mathur, J. 1. This is a Government Appeal under Section 417, Crl. P. C. against the order of the Sessions Judge of Jhansi allowing the appeal of Dhanwan, respondent, and thereby acquitting Lim of the offence punishable under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act, on the ground that the D.B.M.L. gun said to have been recovered from his possession on 20-2-1901 was not sealed at the spot and the necessary link evidence not adduced to prove that the gun was recovered in the same condition and was the same as was produced before the trial Court. The learned Ses-sions Judge took this view on consideration of certain decisions of this Court. In view of the fact that the appeal was being allowed on a legal ground, the Sessions Judge did not record a finding whether the prosecution had or had not succeeded in proving the recovery of the gun from the posses-sion of the respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent made a request that in case the above question of law was decided against him, the...
Shiva J. Maharaj Gauri Shanker Mahadeoji Vs. Durga Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All37
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal against an order passed by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur holding that the decree for ejectment was not executable.2. The appellant was the landlord of certain property of which the respondent was tenant, A suit was tiled by the appellant for ejectment and arrears of rent, and the said suit was decreed in terms of a compromise which contained the following terms:'The suit is decreed for Rs. 987/8/- but dismissed regarding the relief for ejectment and the parties are to bear their own costs; in case the defendant does not pay the aforesaid amount by July 27, 1950 the suit will be considered to have been decreed for ejectment also and the plaintiff will be entitled to execute the decree for ejectment and arrears of rent.'3. It appears that the respondent defaulted in payment of the decretal amount and thereafter an execution application was filed against him by the appellant for arrears of rent and for ejectment. The re...
Ram Lachman Vs. J.K. Kapoor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All80
B. Dayal, J. 1. This appeal arises out of anorder passed by the Insolvency Judge refusingannulment of alienation of his property by theinsolvent on the 4th of July, 1950. On appeal,this order was set aside by the learned DistrictJudge and the transfer was annulled. The transferee Ram Lachman has come up to this Court inappeal. 2. The facts may be shortly stated which are not in controversy. Brahma Shankar and others, who were creditors of Bishambhar Nath filed an application for adjudging Bishambhar Nath an insolvent on the 3rd of October, 1950. In that application, they alleged that the judgment-debtor Bishambhar Nath had transferred all his property on the 4th of July, 1950 in favour of Ram Lachman. This transfer was with the object of delaying and defeating the creditors. This application was not opposed and on the 19th of January, 1951, Bishambhar Nath was declared insolvent. On the 4th of February. 1952, the Official Receiver filed an application under Section 53 of the Provincial...
Badri Dass Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1963
Reported in: AIR1963All346
N.U. Beg, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's first appeal against a Judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, lucknow, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of Rs. 35,575/-from the defendants together with costs and interest, pendente lite and future, as the Court may deem just.2. The plaintiff in the suit was Badri Das appellant, who held canteens as an Army contractor at Jheium, Mona and Sargodha before the partition of India, which took place with effect from the 15th August, 1947. similarly Messrs. K. S. Haji S. Abdullah and Brothers also held canteen contracts at Lucknow, Allahabad and Faizabad in U. P. before the partition. After the partition Messrs. K. S. Haji S. Abdullah and Brothers wanted to migrate to Pakistan. Badri Das found it difficult to carry on his business in Pakistan due to the disturbances there. Hence he also wanted to migrate to India.In this situation, the plaintiff and Messrs. K. S. Haji S. Abdullah and Brothers agreed to exchange their respective business a...
Kishni and ors. Vs. Ratna and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All17
Dayal, J.1. This second appeal has been referred to a Division Bench because of a conflict of views between two Bombay rulings reported in Putla Bai v. Mahadu, ILR 33 Bom 107 and Panchappa v. Sanganbasawa, ILR 24 Bom 89.2. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are not in controversy. One Bhupat, defendant No. 4, sold a house to the plaintiffs by means of a registered sale-deed. Having purchased the house, the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the house and for damages against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the allegations that they were in illegal possession of it, that they had caused some damages to the wall of the house, and that the plaintiffs had suffered a loss of Rs. 100/-. The plaintiffs also claimed Rs. 2/- per month for illegal use and occupation of the house by the defendants.3. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that Bhupat had no right to sell the property to the plaintiffs as he had been given in adoption by his mother to one Chhajju, and having ...
Shri Nath and anr. Vs. Smt. Saraswati Devi Jaiswal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All52
S.D. Singh, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of two defendants who' were tenants in the accommodation to which the suit relates. The only question which was pressed in this second appeal relates to the validity of the notice. The notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was sent to both the tenants under one registered cover, the names of both the tenants being mentioned as addressees over the same. The registered cover was tendered by the postman to only one of them, but he refused to accept service, me first contention on behalf of the appellants was that The notice was never tendered to the other tenant and there was, therefore, no service of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on him. So far as this aspect of the case is concerned, the point is fully covereo by the decision of this Court in Liladhar Pandey v. Ramji Dass, 1956 All LJ 650. It was held by Upadhya J. in that case that where in case of a joint lease a n...
Laxmi NaraIn and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All236
S.N. Katju, J. 1. This is a special appeal against the judgment of our brother Tandon by which he refused to issue any writ or direction as prayed for by the appellants and dismissed their petition. The dispute between the parties relates to a market known as Fatehganj Bazar situate hi the city of Lucknow. The market contains a number of buildings occupied by different persons and the rest of the market is open area, where stall holders and other persons collect and bring their goods, particularly grain for sale to the general public. The stall holders have to pay certain dues for keeping their stalls which used to be collected by the appellants. On the 3rd of August, 1960, the opposite party No. 2 the Tahsildar, Lucknow, acting under the direction of higher authorities published a notice informing the public that the aforesaid market had been resumed by the State Government and further directing the persons visiting the market and liable to pay the market dues not to pay the same to t...
Jagdish Prasad Vs. Manager, Modi Lantern Works
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All323; [1963(7)FLR124]; (1964)ILLJ126All
S.C. Manchanda, J.1. This is a first appeal from the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Meerut, rejecting the appellant's claim that he had lost his eye sight in the right eye permanently as a result of the accident which took place on the 4th April 1958.2. The appellant was an employee in the Modi Lantern Works and was working as a pinion fixing man in the factory. On 4th April 1958 apinion burst and a particle entered the right eye of the appellant and injured the same. He was taken to Dr. Dixit (D.W. 1) who took out the particle from his eye and certified him fit for work under certificate (Ext. D. 2) dated the 16th April 1958. The appellant lost the eye sight of his right eye completely and claimed compensation of Rs. 882/- on the basis of his monthly wages at the rate of Rs. 62.75. nP.3. The opposite party admits that the appellant is a workman and also that he received the injury in an accident which arose during the course of his employment. It however alleges tha...
Chhedi Lal Gupta and ors. Vs. Mohammad Sattar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1963
Reported in: AIR1963All448
K.B. Asthana, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against an order of the Additional Civil Judge, Mirzapur, returning the plaint at the instance of the plaintiff to be presented to the Court of the District Judge of Allahabad.2. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendants for an injunction restraining them from selling Biris under a particular kind of trade mark and had claimed certain amount of damages. The defendants had raised an objection in the Courtof the Civil Judge that the suit being one for in fringement of trade mark was not cognisable by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge. Mirzapuri but could only be tried in the Court of the District;Judge of Allahabad under Section 73 of the Indian Trade Marks Act. The learned Additional Civil Judge decided the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and having come to a conclusion that the action was an action for 'passing off as known, under the law and practice of trade-mark held that it was cognisable by him. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »