Allahabad Court April 1963 Judgments
Mohammad Azamat Azim Khan Vs. Raja Shatranji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1963All541
Desai, C.J. 1. This is an application for review of an order passed by this Court on 27-11-1962 by which it rejected the applicant's revision application arising out of an order passed by a Civil Judge rejecting his application made under Section 4 of the Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act for amendment of several simple decrees passed by a Special Judge under section 14 of the Encumbered Estates Act, The applicant had contended in his application under Section 4 that there were mortgaged properties charged under the decrees and this court held that no charge was created by the decrees and that consequently the applicant was not entitled to apply under Section 4 of the Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act. This Court accordingly maintained the dismissal of the application by the Civil Judge. On 4-12-1962 Section 4 of the Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act was amended by Amendment Act No. XX of 1962 and the words 'charged under the decree'' occurring in Section 4 were deleted. Section 2 of the Amendment...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. J.S. Verma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All168
Desai, C.J.1. This is an application for a- declaration that the case decided by our brother Dhavan hi second appeal No. 162 of 1957 is a fit one for appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5, of Rules of-Court. Our learned brother heard this second appeal here at Lucknow on 8-2-1962; he had come to Lucknow temporarily and was not a permanent member of Lucknow Bench. He reserved Judgment and then returned to Allahabad. On 26-3-1962 he prepared the judgment and sent it to Lucknow to our brother Beg for being pronounced by him as permitted by Chapter VII Rule 1 (3). Beg J. ordered on 27-3-1962 that a notice be given to the parties that the judgment would be pronounced on 29-3-1962. On 29-3-1962 Beg, J. pronounced the judgment.Nobody was present in the court on behalf of the applicant when it was pronounced and no application, whether oral or written, whether addressed to Dhavan, J. or to Beg, J., was made at the time when the judgment was pronounced or just before it was pronounced. An appeal fr...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Vs. Jhunnilal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All190
ORDERS.C. Manchanda, J.1. This is a revision against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Allahabad dated the 2nd of June, 1962, rejecting the application of the applicant under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act praying that the delay in the filing of the appeal be condoned.2. The facts briefly are these: Ram Chandra, father of the present applicant, since deceased, and respondents Nos. 4-9 brought a suit No. 390 of 1959 for Cancellation of a sale-deed executed by Kesho Das deceased, then living, in favour of defendant-respondents Jhunni Lal, Deep Narain and Raj Narain on the 3rd of June, 1961. The suit was partly decreed and partly dismissed. That was the last working day before the Courts closed for summer vacation. The applicant's father on that very day through his counsel Mr. A.P. Tiwari, applied for a copy of the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The Courts reopened on the 4th July, 1961.A day prior thereto, on the 3rd July, 1961. Ram Chandra was murdere...
Tag this Judgment!Chatur Mohan and ors. Vs. Ram Behari Dixit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All562
Desai, C. J.1. This case has been referred to a larger Bench by Srivastava and Katju JJ., on account of a conflict between S G. Banerji v. Ram Kumar Das, Civil Revn. No 992 of 1958 decided by Mukherji and Uniyal, JJ. on 6-4-1962 (All) and Daulat Ram v. Tirloki Ram. Second Appeal No. 1889 of 1955 decided by Beg and Srivastava, JJ., on 18-8-1961 (All) on the question whether a Munsif exercising jurisdiction conferred upon him by Section 7-E of the U. P (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act acts as a Civil court or as a persona designata.2. The Act confers Jurisdiction in respect of several matters upon District Magistrates, i.e. District Magistrates within the meaning of the Cr. P. C. and other officers empowered by them to perform any of their functions under the Act; vide Sections 3-A, 7 and 7-A When a landlord or a tenant claims that the annual reasonable rent of any accommodation is inadequate or excessive he can institute a suit for declaration or for fixation of rent 'in the...
Tag this Judgment!Basant Lal Sah Vs. Bhagwati Prasad Sah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All210
Dhavan, J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the landlord's suit for his ejectment. The defendant appellant Basant Lal Sah is the tenant of a shop in Nainital of which Bhagwati Prasad Sah is the landlord and owner. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant occupied the shop under a monthly tenancy. He obtained the permission under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act for the ejectment of the tenant and then served on him a notice terminating his tenancy and requiring him to quit. The notice also contained a demand for payment of arrears of rent. According to the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the rent within the prescribed period of one month. The defendant resisted the suit and denied that his tenancy was from month to month. He alleged that it was a yearly tenancy in accordance with the prevailing custom in Nainital. He also pleaded that the rent was always paid annually and, therefore, he had commit...
Tag this Judgment!Bariat Ullah Khan Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All329
1. This special appeal has been filed by Bariat Ullah Khan whose petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The facts giving rise to the writ petitions that the appellant held a permit for plying a stage carriage on Bareilly Shiahgarh route. The transport authorities decided to nationalise this route. On 14th May, 1960, a notification was issued under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 21st May, 1960. Various objections to the scheme were filed amongst which was an objection by the petitioner. That objection was heard by Sri Rule Chandra, Joint Secretary to the State Government in the Judicial Department. His objection was dismissed and then on 10th July, 1961, a notification was issued under Section 68-D of the Act approving the draft scheme. This notification was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 15th July, 1961. As a consequence of ...
Tag this Judgment!Hajira Bibi Vs. Abrar Hussain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All343
S.D. Singh, J.1. This is a plaintff's appeal arising outof a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif for ejectment and that part of the decree has become final. The Munsif decreed the suit for the recovery of arrears of rent, but that decree was reversed by the first appellateCourt on the ground that the plaintiff having illegally dispossessed the defendant from a part of the house which was let out to him, he was no longer entitled to any rent. The plaintiff has, therefore, filed this second, appeal inrespect of that relief.2. The house in question was let out to the defendant at Rs. 13/- p.m. The, rent was, obviously, therefore, for the whole of the accommodation. If the plaintiff dispossessed the defendant from a part of the same, he ceased to be entitled to realise rent from him either for the whole of the accommodation or for that part ofit which continues to remain in his (defendant's) possession. The position would, of course,...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC777(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. The Judge (Revisions) has submitted this statement of case inviting this Court's answer to the following question:-Whether the word 'goods' appearing in item No. 9 of List I given in the Notification No. ST-117/X-923-1948 dated 8th June, 1948, modified by Notification No. ST-1429/X-1012-1948, dated 30th June, 1949, refers to and qualifies 'canvas' also or whether the word 'canvas' means only the canvas cloth and not included in cloth which is item No. 2 in the same list? 2. The assessee at whose instance the statement has been referred, is a manufacturer of canvas cloth and the question is at what rate it is liable to pay sales tax on the turnover of sale of canvas cloth.3. Under Section 3 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act subject to the other provisions of the Act, a dealer is liable for each assessment year to pay a tax at the rate of two naye paise per rupee on his turnover of a year,. Section 3-A empowers the State Government to declare that the turnover in respect of a...
Tag this Judgment!Mehar Ali Vs. Kalut
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All377
Mithan Lal, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Sri Sripat Narain Singh, learned advocate for the appellant, has raised two contentions in this appeal. The first is that Article 47 of the Indian Limitation Act did not apply to a suit for joint possession while his second contention is that the lower appellate court went wrong in observing that the right of the plaintiff as a bhumidhar was extinguished or that the defendant had become a sole bhumidhar.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff claimed relief for a joint possession as a co-bhumidhar of the land in dispute on the allegations that the plots were joint tenancy of the parties from the time of their ancestors and that the parties became joint Bhumidhars of these plots on the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In the former litigation between the parties the revenue court held that the plaintiff was a joint tenant and as wrong entries continued the present suit was brought...
Tag this Judgment!Asghar Khan Vs. State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All391; 1964CriLJ260
ORDERW. Broome, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Sultanpur, recommending that an order passed by the S. D. M., Sadar, Sultanpur, dropping proceedings under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code, be set aside.2. The proceedings started on 16-5-1962 with an application sent by Asghar Khan (the present petitioner) to the Superintendent of Police, alleging that there was danger of a breach of the peace being committed by Barkat and others (the opposite parties). On 8-6-1962 a police report recommending that action be taken against the opposite parties under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code was received in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who thereupon passed an order under Section 112 Criminal Procedure Code, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute personal bonds with sureties to keep the peace for one year. But when the opposite parties appeared in Court, they submitted a written application assuring the Magist...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »