Allahabad Court October 1963 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Gorakh Mohan Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All477
Pathak, J.1. This is a revision application by the Union of India against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Varanasi, allowing an application under Section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act.2. The application was made by the respondent, Gorakh Mohandas, praying that an arbitrator be appointed to hear and decide certain matters in dispute between the parties, In the application, the respondent represented that he was proprietor of the National Trading Company, Allahabad, that as such proprietor he had entered into a contract with the Union of India and the Northern Railway for the supply of stone ballast, that one of the conditions of the contract stipulated was that payment would be made regularly in respect of supplies effected every month and that there was also a condition providing for arbitration in case of a dispute between the parties. It was alleged that although he had made supplies during January and February 1961 and had submitted his bill accordingly, payment had not been ...
Tag this Judgment!Ulwar Singh Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All412; 1965CriLJ326
D.S. Mathur, J.1. This is a revision application by Ulwar Singh to challenge his conviction of an offence punishable under Section 6 of the U. P. Control of Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1947, as re-enacted under Section 2 of the U. P. Control of Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1953, and continued in force by Act VIII of 1955 for contravention of Clause 3 (2) of the U. P. Bricks Control Order, 1956 (to be referred hereinafter as the Order). He has been awarded a fine of Rs. 1000/-and at the same time the stock of bricks burnt by him in contravention of the Order was forfeited.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. They are that the applicant burnt bricks for sale with firewood without obtaining the permission of the District Magistrate as was necessary under Clause 3 (2) of the Order. However, it was asserted in defence that he had burnt the bricks after obtaining a licence from the Gram Panchayat. Such a licence, if obtained, could not exonerate him of the offence. In other ...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Singh Rais Vs. Harnam Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All381
Dhavan, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal from the decision of the learned Civil Judge, Dehra Dun decreeing the plaintiff's suit for the enforcement of a mortgage bond. The facts are these. The plaintiffs Harnam Dass, Ramanand and Vishwanath alleged that the first defendant Bawa Takhat Singh (the fourth respondent in this appeal) mortgaged several properties in their favour as security for a sum of Rs. 9,000 borrowed by him. The properties were in Pakistan except one house in Mussoorie known as Oakleaf. The mortgage deed was executed at Lahore on 28-4-1939 and registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar. An entry was also made in the register of the District Registrar of Saharanpur and, the sub-Registrar of Mussoorie. Under the terms of the loan interest was fixed at one rupee per cent per mensem simple, and the entire amount together with interest was payable on demand. 2. The plaintiffs alleged that they instituted a suit for the enforcement of the mortgage in the Court of the Sub-...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Raghunandan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All418; 1964CriLJ262
Capoor, J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against an appellate order of the learned Sessions Judge of Kumaun allowing an appeal preferred by the respondent against the order of learned Magistrate first class Tarai Nainital convicting the respondent of an offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act XXXVII of 1954 hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1954 read with Section 7 of that act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.2. The respondent held a shop in Tanakpur and sold sweetmeat. On 16th May 1960 at about mid-day Sri Ziaul Haq Ansari, Food Inspector Fhatima went to the shop of the respondent and purchased 3/4 seers of Besan Laddoos for a sum of Rs. 1-14-0. He divided the laddoos into three equal parts and kept each part in a different phial and sealed the same. One of the phials was handed over to the respondent, the other was retained by the Food Inspector and the third was sent to the Public Analyst who r...
Tag this Judgment!Champion Cycle Industries Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All328; [1963(7)FLR423]; (1964)ILLJ724All
Desai, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of our brother Dwivedi refusing to issue a writ of prohibition restraining the Presiding Officer of a labour Court from adjudicating an industrial dispute referred to the Court by the State Government under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. A dispute arose between the appellant, the employer, and its workmen relating to 31 workmen. The State Government referred the dispute relating to only three of the workmen to the Labour Court end refused to refer the dispute relating to the remaining 28 workmen on the ground that it did not consider it fit to refer it. The dispute relating to three workmen that was referred to the Labour Court ended in a compromise before the Labour Court and thereafter the State Government referred the dispute relating to 21 out of the remaining 28 workmen to the Labour Court. The appellant's contention is that the State Government had no power left to refer the dispute to the Labour Court after having...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All148
Desai, C.J.1. This and the associated petitions for certiorari have been referred to a larger Bench by our brother Nigam on account of their raising the question whether Narottam Saran v. State of U. P., : AIR1954All232 was correctly decided or not. The petitioners in ,all these petitions are tenants of accommodations governed by the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act and owned by opposite party No. 3 of each petition. Under Section 3(i) no suit, can without the permission of the District Magistrate, he filed in any civil court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation (except on one or more of certain grounds, none of which exists in these cases). All the accommodations are situated in Lucknow city and the landlords applied to the District Magistrate, Luck-now for permission to eject the petitioners. The District Magistrate permitted the landlords in this petition and in petitions Nos. 304 and 306 and refused permission in petition No. 303. Section 3 (2)...
Tag this Judgment!Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Investi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1963
Reported in: [1963]50ITR101(All); [1966]60ITR720(All)
This is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution directed against the order passed under section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), dated the 31st March, 1962, where by the Income-tax Officer further reduced the rebate allowed under the second proviso 1(b) of Paragraph D of Part II of the First Schedule to the Finance Act of 1956, by reducing the paid up capital by that capital by that capital which carried a fixed rate of dividend with the ordinary shareholders.The facts leading up to the petition are these : The petitioner is a public limited company. The relevant assessment year is the assessment year 1956-57, the accounting year being the year ending the 31st December, 1955. By an assessment order dated the 7th July, 1960, the total income of the petitioner was assessed at Rs. 48,21,860 and the amount of tax payable thereon was determined at Rs. 22,94,400. After adjusting payments of Rs. 14,00,000 made under sections 18A and 23B, the...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bilas Kedar Nath and Others Vs. Income-tax Officer, District Iii ( ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1963
Reported in: [1964]54ITR11(All)
This is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution directed against the notices issued under section 22(4), section 28(1)(a) and section 46(5A) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The prayer is for the quashing of the aforesaid notices issued in respect of the assessment proceedings for 1953-54 and 1954-55. A prayer is also made for the issue of a writ of mandamus requiring the Income-tax Officer not to assess the firm, Messrs. Ram Bilas Kedar Nath, for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55.The petition is supported by an affidavit which makes allegations against the Income-tax officer of harassment. No counter-affidavit was field and, therefore, the allegations made in the petition must be taken to be true. The only point urged by the learned standing counsel is, what he calls a legal point for which no counter-affidavit was necessary, and that is that a writ of mandamus can never issue so long as the Income-tax officer had jurisdiction to make th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Tara Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All372; 1965CriLJ179
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J.1. This is an application in revision by Smt. Tara against the Magistrate's order proceeding with the trial under Section 5 of the Suppression or immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and not quashing the charge sheet submitted by the police, which is a police report as contemplated by Section 173 (1), Crl. P. C. The police report was submitted by a police officer who was not a Special Police Officer appointed by or on behalf of the State Government under Section 13(1) of the Act for dealing with offences under the Act. The Magistrate took cognizance of the police report and when an objection was raised to his taking cognizance of the offence on such a police report, he proceeded with the trial on the ground that there was no legal bar to his taking cognizance of the offence on a report submitted by a police officer other than a Special Police Officer. The applicant went up in revision before the Sessions Judge, but he dismissed...
Tag this Judgment!Bahorey Dina Nath Vs. Indramani Jatia and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All436
Katju, J.1. The plaintiff Bahorey Dina Nath has preferredthis appeal against the decree of the lower appellate Court which reversed the decision of the trialCourt. The plaintiff instituted the suit in appealwith the allegation that the shops of the partieswere adjacent to each other and they were dividedby a common wall of the parties and the defendant had demolished a portion of the aforesaidcommon wall as shown in the map attached tothe plaint. The plaintiff also claim damages andasked for possession of the land of the wall whichhad been encroached upon and for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with hispossession over the disputed wall in any way. Itis admitted that the wall in dispute belongs jointlyto the parties. The width of the wall is 20 inches.It is made of old bricks, called, 'Kakaya bricks'.The question in dispute would be clear from thefollowing extracts from the judgment of the lowerappellate Court:'The position of the disputed wall would be clear from ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »