Allahabad Court November 1963 Judgments
Ramji Dixit and anr. Vs. Bhrigunath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All1
Desai, C.J. 1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgments of our brothers Jagdish Sahai and Dwivedi and agree with the view taken by the latter. The most important fact is that the legislature has not said anywhere that a widow who has inherited bhumidhari rights from her husband has only it life interest and cannot transfer the bhumidhari rights permanently. On the other hand, Section 152 has made the interest of a bhumidhar transferable subject only to the conditions contained in Chapter VIII. Bhumidhari rights being heritable can be inherited by different classes of heirs but the legislature has made no attempt to distinguish between bhumidhari rights inherited by one class of heirs from those inherited by another class of heirs except in regard to succession or death. Other provisions in the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act concerning bhumidhari rights apply to all persons owning bhumidhari rights regardless of how they acquired them or from whom they inherited them....
Tag this Judgment!Raja Yadvendra Datt Dube Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1963
Reported in: [1964]54ITR506(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - This is case referred under section 24(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Income-tax Act by the Revision Board at the assessees instance, the question requiring this courts answer being :'Whether on the facts and having regard to the provisions of section 25 of the Act, the Board could on the 15th October, 1952, direct a fresh assessment to be made ?'The facts as they appear from the statement are as follows : The gross agricultural income of the assessee is of more than one lakh of rupees and the Collector and not the Sub-divisional Officer is his assessing authority : vide section 14. Section 15(3) lays down that 'in the case of any person whose total agricultural income is, in the opinion of the assessing authority, such amount as to render such person liable to payment of agricultural income-tax in any years, he may be served in that year a notice in the proscribed form requiring such person to furnish within such period, not being less than thirty days as may ...
Tag this Judgment!Oudh Sugar Mill Vs. the State.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1963
Reported in: [1964]54ITR573(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - This is a case referred under section 24(2) of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act by Revision Board at the assessees instance, the questions requiring this courts answer being :'1. Whether in the circumstances of the case all or any of the applications in revision filed by the State should be dismissed as being barred by limitation on the ground that they had been filed beyond a reasonable time ?2. Whether if the applications are not dismissed on that ground, the Board the power after the expiry of the period prescribed by section 25 or section 26 of altering the order of the assessing authority ?'The facts as they appear from the statement are as follows : For the assessment year 1358 (i.e. July 1, 1950, to June 30, 1951), the assessing authority made the assessment order on September 29, 1951. The State Government on July 9, 1954, applied to the Revision Board to revise the assessment order under section 22, which reads as follows :'22, (1) The Revision Board may...
Tag this Judgment!Asharfi Lal Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All215; 1965CriLJ535
D.S. Mathur, J.1. Tills is a Criminal Reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Kanpur witn trie recommendation that the Magistrate's order dated 7-5-1062 directing tne applicant, Ashari Lal, to remove the encroachment made by him on the public path situate in plot Wo. 342 be removed within ten days falling which he would be liable to penalty provided under Section 188, l. p. c. be set aside. There is no dispute in that the shop of Asharfi Lal stands on the land of Old Moghal Koad which is still public land, though it is said on behalf of Asharfi Lal that the land in front of his shop is not being used as a Rasta since the opening of the New Moghal Koad. From the evidence on record it appears that Asharfi Lal constructed a Kachcha shop sometimes in or about 1050 and pucca constructions were made within a year or two.2. On the report of the Collector of Kanpur the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bhogmpur took action under Section 133, Cri. P. C. and under the Impugned order confirmed t...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dayal Vs. G.P. Satsangi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All18
ORDERG.C. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner obtained a simple money decree for Rs. 102/5/- from the Panchayat Adalat on May 21, 1950. A revision application filed against this decree was dismissed on November 27, 1951 and a writ petition filed against it was dismissed on February 22, 1954. The petitioner thereafter, on December 1, 1955, filed an application for execution of the decree before the Panchayati Adalat, but this application was dismissed for default. Subsequently, on February 3, 1957, he filed a second application for execution. This application was dismissed by the Panchayati Adalat by an order dated August 14, 1957, as being time-barred. The petitioner filed a revision against that order in the Court of the Munsif but the latter has upheld the order of the Panchayati Adalat that the second application for execution was time-barred. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the orders of the Panchayati Adalat an...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rashid Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1963
Reported in: 1966CriLJ200
ORDERM.H. Beg, J.1. This is an application under Secs. 439/215 of the Cr. P. C. directed against an order committing the applicant and others for trial to the Court of Session for alleged offences under Section 395 I. P.C. The question of law which is involved in this case has resulted in some conflicting decisions on the requirements of the procedure to be followed by Committing Magistrates under Section 207-A of the Cr. P.C. Reliance was placed on behalf of the applicant on a recent decision of this Court in Abdul Aziz v. State 1963 All. L. J 79 : 1963 (I) Cri. L. J. 513. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State, R. K. Shukla, has relied on State of U. P. v. Satyavir : AIR1959All408 and on State of West Bengal v. Tulsidas Mundhra 1963 All. L. J. 813 : (1964) (1) Cri. L. J. 443. Other cases were also cited which need not be referred to by me.2. The view taken in 1963 All. L. J. 79 : 1963 (1) Cri. L. J. 513 may be considered to have been overruled by the view taken by the S...
Tag this Judgment!Hazari Lal Srivastava Vs. Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All411; (1967)IILLJ355All
V. Bhargava, J.1. This (petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been presented by Sri Hazari Lal Srivastava, who was appointed as a Welfare Officer by opposite party No. 1, Messrs. Tulsipur Sugar Co., Ltd. on the 14th July, 1952 praying for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 19th August, 1961 by which his services were terminated by opposite party No. 1, the order dated 26th September, 1961 by which the Labour Commissioner, opposite party No. 2, dismissed the appeal filed by him against the first order, and the order dated 17th May, 1962 passed by the State Government rejecting the representation, made by the petitioner against those two earlier orders.2. Under the provisions of Section 49 of the Factories Act, 1948, the. Government of U. P. promulgated rules relating to appointment of Welfare Officers by factories ordinarily employing 500 or more workers per day. These rules were known as U. P. Factories Welfare Officers Rules, 1949 [hereinafter...
Tag this Judgment!Shiva Ram Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All196; 1965CriLJ524
ORDERM.H. Beg, J.1. The applicant, Shiva Ram, as a driver of a motor truck who has been convicted by a magistrate of Jhansi, under as, 1279 and 304-A, I. P. C., and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment under each count. The sentences were ordered to run concurrentiy. The applicant appealed to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Jhansi, but Ms appeal was dismissed, and the findings arrived at and the convictions and the sentences awarded by the trying Magistrate were affirmed. The applicant now prays for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisionai powers.2. It has been contended by M. lI, Agrawala, very vehemently, that the applicant is not guilty of any offence under Sections 279 and 304A, I.P.C., and that the view of the Courts below that the applicant was driving the truck 'rashly' and 'negltgently' within the purview of Section 304A, I. P, C., thereby causing the death of one Pillai, who was sitting on the extreme left on the front seat of the truck, is perverse ...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Vs. Hardas and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All308
Satish Chandra, J.1. This special appeal has been filed by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for a declaration that the sale deed dated 1-8-1927 would be void and inoperative after the death of Smt. Kashi Bai, the executant thereof.2. Parmanand and Bindraban were two brothers. Bindraban was the owner of the house in dispute. He died and on his death the house in dispute devolved on his widow Smt. Gaura Bai as a limited owner. On 28-1-1926 Smt. Gaura Bai by a deed, gifted the house to her daughter-in-law Smt. Kashi Bai. Permanand's sons, who are respondents 1 to 3 here, challenged the validity of the gift. Ultimately on 1-8-1927 Smt. Kashi Bai executed a sale deed of the house in dispute for a sum of Rs. 1,650/- in favour of the three sons of Permanand, viz., respondents 1, 2 and 3.3. Smt. Kashi Bai's son Rameshwar filed the present suit on 23-2-1948, for a declaration that the aforesaid sale deed would be void and inoperative after the life time of Smt. Kashi Bai, on the allegatio...
Tag this Judgment!Gajrani and ors. Vs. Ram Rati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All547
Desai, C.J.1. This appeal, which came up for hearing before Mithan Lal, J. has been referred by him to a larger bench, because the question involved in it is of general importance and has not been answered by any authoritative decision.2. Respondent No. 1 sued the appellants for partition of joint sir and khudkasht land claiming that she had a one-third share in it and that the appellants had the remaining two-third share. The suit was contested by the appellants who contended that the plaintiff-respondent was not in possession at all, that they had been in exclusive and adverse possession tor more than 12 years and that the respondent was not entitled to partition. The respondent claimed to have inherited one-third share in the laud in dispute from her father, who had died more than 25 years ago and who was a cosharer along with the appellants of the land in dispute. The appellants did not plead either that the respondent never obtained possession over her share after inheritance or t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »