Allahabad Court October 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.
Mohammad Ali Vs. Sri Ram Swarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All161; 1965CriLJ413
Gyanendra Kumar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the complainant against acquittal of the four respondents in a case under Section 342/109 I. P. C. 2. On the relevant date respondent No. 1 Ram Swamp was the Head Constable while the remaining three respondents were constables posted at the Police Station Kairana, district Muzaffarnagar. The complainant is a Homoeopath practising at Kairana. His case was that on 15-10-1961 at about 1 P. M. the respondents unlawfully put him under arrest and took him to the thana where he was detained till 7 A. M. the next day when he was sent to the District Jail, Muzaffarnagar, and was released on ball on the evening of 16-10-61. Proceedings under Section 107/117 Cr. P. C. were takenagainst him which remained pending till 8-12-61 when they were dropped for want of evidence. Twenty-three days later, the complainant lodged a complaint on 1-1-62 with the allegations that without any rhyme or reason he had been put under arrest and detained under unlawful custod...
Gajanand Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All322
Tripathi, J.1. This First Appeal From Order arises out of proceedings under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.2. The appellant filed a petition under Section 10 of the Act before the court of the District Judge, Mathura for being declared an insolvent on the ground that he was unable to pay his debts amounting to Rs. 50,000/-from his assets. The petition was contested by the Income-tax Officer and the Sales Tax Officer, Mathura, who, along with other creditors, are opposite parties to this appeal.3. A date was fixed for the hearing of the petition, as provided under Section 24 of the Act, and the appellant examined himself in support of his case, in his statement the appellant admitted that he had not shown certain items of his properties in the list of assets gives in the petition. He categorically stated that he had omitted to show in his assets the number and the value of the 500 shares which he owned in the paid up capital of some Textile Mills, as also, a necklace of pearls cons...
Bulbu Prasad Amarnath Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1963
Reported in: [1964]15STC46(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. The Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, U. P., has at the assessee's instance submitted to this Court a statement of the case under Section 11 (2) inviting this Court's answers to the following two questions:1. Whether in the circumstances of the case the assessees are manu facturers and liable to pay tax as such on their sales of linseed oil ?2. Whether linseed oil is an edible oil within the meaning of the notification dated 8th June, 1948, issued under the U.P. Sales Tax Act?2. The assessee is a dealer in linseed oil, which is taxable at the point of sale by its manufacturer. It buys oil-seeds and gets them crushed at the mill of another person installed in his premises. The assessee has no mill and does not get oil-seeds converted into oil at its own premises. It pays the owner of the mill his charges for the labour of crushing oil-seeds into oil, brings linseed oil to its premises and sells it. The question is whether it is a manufacturer of linseed oil or not. The Ju...
Atar Singh Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All339; 1964CriLJ124
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J.1. This is an application in revision by Atar Singh to challenge the concurrent finding of the lower courts convicting him of an offence punishable under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to six months' R.I. for being in possession of a country made pistol and two live cartridges without holding any licence.2. The conviction has been challenged on a legal ground and also on facts. It may here be mentioned that the finding of fact recorded by the lower courts cannot be said to be improper and hence cannot be interfered with in Revision.3. The Arms Act, 1959, received the assent of the President on December 23, 1959, though it came into force sometimes in October 1962. The present offence was committed on 14-2-1962 and the police submitted the charge sheet and the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence long before the Arms Act, 1959, came into force. However, in view of Section 46 of the Arms Act, 1959, by which the Indian Arms Act, 1878, was repeale...
Shanti Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Nar Singh Das Bharg ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All17
1. These four special appeals are directed against the order passed by Srivastava, J. on 29-1-1962 on writ petitions Nos. 484 of 1901 and 485 of 1961. Special Appeals Nos. 245 of 1962 and 246 of 1962 have been filed by Shanti Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited, hereinafter referred to as the Society, while special appeals Nos. 484 of 1962 and 485 of 1962 have been tiled by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Society is registered under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act. The objects of the society are:(a) to buy or acquire land by lease, exchange or otherwise,(b) to lay out and to suit the requirements of members and to prepare plans and estimates for the construction of building thereon(c) to build or cause to be built residential houses or other buildings for the convenience of members, and for this purpose to purchase in bulk the necessary building material to start brick lime and other kilns and to provide necessary technical guidance and supervision.(d) to develop a co-opera...
Ram Khelawan Vs. Sudama Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All366
Tripathi, J.1. This first appeal from order is directed against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge of Faizabad on 6-9-1960 in miscellaneous case No. 25 of 1960 appointing the defendant-appellant Receiver of the property in suit and directing him to furnish security for Rs. 15,000/-for accounting and for making good any loss to the estate in case a decree was passed against him.2. One Smt. Sudama Devi filed a suit in forma pauperis against the defendant-appellant in which she claimed a decree for possession over the properties detailed in the plaint, inter alia, on the ground that she was the only daughter and sole hear of Ram Samujh, the deceased brother of defendant-appellant, that all the properties, which were subject-matter of the suit, were properties left by deceased Ram Samujh, that the defendant had no right to possess them and she should be put in possession of the same. She also prayed for being declared a pauper and being allowed to sue in forma pauperis.3. On the sa...
Azmat Azim Khan Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All203
ORDERN.U. Beg, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by Azmat Azim Khan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's allegations in the writ petition are that his father Sardar Mujibul Rahman Khan was a grantee zamindar of a number of villages in district Kheri and had applied under Section 4 of the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act (Act XXXV of 1934) for the liquidation of his debts. Opposite party No. 3 Raja Shatranjai was a creditor of his father on the basis of a mortgage deed. Opposite party No. 3 obtained a decree for Rs. 1,31,040/1/- plus Rs. 1931/1/.- as costs in the Encumbered Estates Act proceedings. This decree is dated 28th September, 1939. It was transferred to the Collector for liquidation.During the pendency of these proceedings the father of the petitioner died leaving the petitioner and his brother Hikmat Hakim Khan as his heirs. When these proceedings were pending the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (Act No. 1 of 1951) came into force, with ...
Ram Krishna Barman Vs. Mohan Lal Sahgal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All10
B.D. Gupta, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal, under Section 6-A of the Court Fees Act, against an order directing him to pay additional Court feet on the plaint giving rise to Suit No 14 of 1956 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaunpur.2. It appears that one Babu Durga Prasad who owns considerable property, died leaving a widow who also died heirless whereafter the properties of Durga Prasad were taken over by the Collector, Jaunpur, as Administrator under the Bengal Regulation Act, by an order dated 6th February, 1950 Suit No. 4 of 1950 was thereafter instituted by one Radhey Lal for a declaration that Radhey Lal was the owner in possession of the properties, given at the foot of the plaint, which consisted of properties which belonged to Rai Bahadur Durga Prasad, as also some properties alleged to have constituted the Stri Dhan properties of his widow Rani Dhan Dei Kunwar Some other properties were also included on the assertion that they had been acquired by Rani Dhan Dei Kunwar from t...
Lala Ram Vs. Ram Swarup and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All495
B. D. Gupta, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal on a reference made to us by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The suit giving rise to this appeal had been filed, within limitation, by Ram Swamp, on the basis of a Hundi in favour of Ram Swarup, the father, and Jagdish Prasad, his minor son. Jagdish Prasad, who was a minor at the time the suit was instituted, did not join the suit, nor was hearrayed as a defendant. After the expiry of theperiod, allowed by the law of limitation in thenormal course, for the institution of a suit by afolder of a negotiable instrument, Jagdish Prasad,the minor son, who was still a minor, also joinedas a plaintiff. The only plea with which we areconcerned was that, inasmuch as Jagdish Prasad was a holder of the Hundi but had not joined the suit as a plaintiff within limitation, the suit wasbarred, and was liable to be dismissed on thisground alone. The trial Court took the view thatthe suit was not barred with the result that adecree was granted i...
Sheo Raj Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All290; 1964CriLJ1
Desai, C.J.1. This case has been laid before this Bench for decision of the question whether 'the memorandum of identification proceedings held by a Magistrate acting under Section 164, Cr. P. C. is admissible without proof'. The question arose before Kailash Prasad, J., during the hearing of the appeal and he referred it to a Full Bench because of a conflict between Asharfi v. State 0043/1961 : AIR1961All153 and the State v. Chandrapal Govt. Appeal No. 1931 of 1961, DA 18-8-1962 (All). In the latter case Uniyal and Gyanendra Kumar, JJ., without noticing the decision in Asharfi's case 0043/1961 : AIR1961All153 held, contrary to what was held in that case, that Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act does not apply to a memorandum of identification proceedings prepared by a Magistrate and that it cannot be presumed to be genuine and must be proved to be so by evidence. Criminal Appeal No. 766 of 1962 is connected with this appeal. In Criminal Revision No. 1291 of 1963 the only question ra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »