Allahabad Court May 1963 Judgments
Maheshwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Ishwari Khetan Su ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All135; [1963]33CompCas1142(All)
Mathur, J. 1. This judgment shall govern, special appeals Nos. 108 to 111 of 1963 which arise out of tour applications under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, for rectification of registers of members. Special Appeal No. 108 of 1963 is against the orders of the Company Judge passed in company case No. 16 of 1962 initiated on the application of Manna Lal Khetan against Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills (Private) Ltd. Chhitauni, distt. Deoria, Kedar Nath Khetan and his adopted son, Gauri Prasad Khetan, and R. N. Chavan, special Mamlatdar and Receiver appointed by the Collector, Bombay, in recovery proceedings against Kedar Nath Khetan Mitanand and Mata Din Hari Ram. Special Appeal No. 109 is against the decision in company case No. 17 of 1962 started on the application of Manna Lal Khetan, Matadin Khetan, Bhagwati Prasad Khetan, sons of Seth Hari Ram Khetan, and Smt. Mahadbiri Devi widow of Seth Hari Ram Khetan against Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills (Private) Ltd. Chhitauni, distt. Deoria, Durga ...
Tag this Judgment!F.G. Davidson Vs. Mohanlal Sindhi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All342
ORDERS.C. Manchanda, J. 1. This is a revision against the order of the Second Additional Munsif, Kanpur dated the 13th October 1961 reviewing the order of his predecessor and recalling the order dated the 29th of July 1961 passed by his' predecessor.2. The main ground of revision is that the learned Additional Munsif exceeded his jurisdiction inasmuch as he sat on the judgment of his predecessor in appeal and reversed the order purporting to do so by exercising his powers under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the C. F. C.3. A cursory perusal of the order passed in review shows that the learned Judge ignored the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 and decided the matter as if it was an appeal before him. A review under Order XLVII Rule 1 can only lie ii one of the grounds mentioned therein is made out.There must be the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge or could not be produced at the time when the order was made o...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Mohan Das Agarwal Vs. Z.A. Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All523
Pathak, J.1. This is an appeal under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against an order dismissing an election petition.2. The first respondent, Z.A. Ahmad, was declared elected on February 28, 1962 to the U.P. Legislative Assembly from the Kopaganj Assembly Constituency in the district of Azamgarh. An election petition challenging the validity of his election was presented by the appellant, who was one of the contesting candidates and had received the next highest number of votes in the election. The election petition was referred by the Election Commission to the Election Tribunal, Azamgarh for trial. The petition contained a number of allegations of corrupt practices, and it is admitted that when presenting it before the Election Commission no affidavit in support of these allegations was filed with it.3. In his written statement and also by a separate application, the first respondent raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of theelection petition contending ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Prasad Vs. Lachhman Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All108
Desai, C.J.1. The following question has been referred to this Bench by our brothers Jagdish Sahai and Mithan Lal:-'Whether an application under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act can be made in a case like the present one where the arbitrator had started to function and had entered upon the reference but at a later stage could not proceed with the same?'A conflict among decisions dealing with this question necessitated this reference to a Full Bench'. The parties to this appeal are brothers and had disputes regarding partition of joint property. On 9-12-1955 they entered into an agreement to refer the question of partition of all their joint property to the sole arbitration of Sri Baij Nath Prasad. No time was fixed for his making an award and, therefore, under Section 3 of the Arbitration Act (which will henceforth be referred to as the Act) Clause 3 of the 1st Schedule attached to the Act applied and the arbitrator had to make his award within four months after entering on the...
Tag this Judgment!The Sunni Central Board of Waqf U.P. Lucknow and anr. Vs. Sirajul Haq ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1963All537
Desai, C.J.1. This is a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that the order dated 10-5-1962 is an incomplete or interlocutory order, that the final order was passed on 7-12-1952 when possession was ordered to be delivered to the three receivers after they had furnished the required security and that the receiver Sri Mahmud Ullah Khan appointed under the order dated 10-5-62 was replaced by another receiver, Sri Hafiz Ullah Ansari. An appeal lies under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (s) from an order passed under Order 40, Rule 1. If an order is an order passed under Order XL, Rule 1, an appeal lies and it is irrelevant to go into the question whether it is an incomplete order or interlocutory order or a final order. Security has to be furnished after an order appointing a person as a receiver has been made under Rule 1; this is made clear by Rule 3, which lays down that 'every receiver so appointed shall (a) furnish such security' etc. It cannot be doubted for ...
Tag this Judgment!Vidheshwar Pathak Vs. Budhiram Barai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All345
Mithan Lal, J.1. This second appeal came up for hearing before a learned single Judge who by his order dated the 27th September, 1957 referred it to a bench, because an important question of law arose in the case.2. Briefly stated, the fads are that the appellant decree-holder obtained a simple money decree for Rs. 610 besides costs and future interest against the assets of Smt. Kusma Kunwar deceased in the hands of Hira, Gopal and Budhiram, some time in 1956. This decree was. put in execution and a house was attached stating that the house was the asset of Kusma Kunwar. Budhiram respondent filed an objection stating that the house did not belong to Kusma Kunwar nor was it a part of the assets left by her. This objection has found favour with both the Courts below. It has been held that the house did not belong to Kusma Kunwar and was not liable to attachment and sale. It was against these concurrent findings of fact that the present appeal was filed.3. It appears that the decree-holde...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Raj Singh Vs. Shah Nawaz Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All196
Mithan Lal, J.1. This writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution by one of the electors arises out of an election matter. The petitioner has prayed; (1) to issue a writ or certiorari, order or direction in the nature of ceniorari to quash the order of the Election Tribunal, respondent No. 3, dated 24th October 1962; (2) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Election tribunal to decide the amendment application of the petitioner on merits; and (3) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction.2. Briefly stated the facts are, that the petitioner, Sri Hart Raj Singn, who $ an elector of 81 Meerut LOK Sabha Constituency, tiled an election petition questioning the election of Sri Shah Nawaz Khan, respondent No. 1, on the ground that the said respondent committed corrupt practices as defined in Section 123(3) of the Representation of we people Act through his agents, supporters and workers. The corrupt practices have been enumer...
Tag this Judgment!Mata Prasad Vs. Dewakar Bharti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All228
ORDERN.U. Beg, J. 1. This judgment governs the following writ petitions: 1. Writ Petition No. 273 of 1960 Mata Prasad v. Mahant Dewakar Bharti and Ors. 2. Writ Petition No. 276 of 1960 Baldeo Singh v. Matiant Dewakar Bharti and Ors. 3. Writ Petition No. 277 of 1960 Dhan Prasad Singh v. Mahant Dewakar Bharti and Ors. 4. Writ Petition No. 278 of I960 Deep Narain Singh v. Mahant Dewakar Bharti and Ors. As the facts relating to all the aforementioned four cases are identical, Writ Petition No. 273 of 1960 (Mata Prasad v. Mahant Dewakar Bharti and Ors.) shall be treated as the leading case, and the judgment will be given with reference to the facts stated in this Writ Petition. The four petitioners in these writ petitions mentioned above were all opposite parties in an application under Section 232 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act made by opposite party No. 1, namely, Mahant Dewakar Bharti. This application purported tb be one under Section 20/232 of the U.P. Zamindar...
Tag this Judgment!Hamid HusaIn Vs. Ram Naresh Mallah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All221
Mithan Lal, J. 1. The following question has been referred by a learned single Judge to a Division Bench. 'Whether a mortgagee under a void mortgage of an occupancy holding acquires the status of an asami under the provisions of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.' 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff respondent Tulsi Mallah executed a mortagage of his occupancy holding in favour of the predecessor in interest of the defendant appellant on 14th May, 1913, for a consideration of Rs. 500/-. The present suit was instituted in the civil court for possession of the disputed property on payment of mortgage money. The defence was that the suit was not maintainable in the civil court and that the defendant had become Asami and the only proper remedy for the plaintiff was to institute a suit under Section 202 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called as the Act). 3. Both the Courts below have overruled the defenc...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dular Singh and anr. Vs. Babu Sukhu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All498
Desai, C. J. 1. This case has been referred by Mithan Lal, J., to a larger bench for decision of the following questions :-'2. Did the appellants become adhivasis of the disputed land under the provisions of Section 20 (a) (ii) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act from the commencement of the said Act and then became sirdars after proceedings under Chapter IX-A of the said Act? 3. Alternatively have the appellants become adhivasis under Section 20 (b) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and thereafter sirdars under Chapter IX-A of the said Act? 4. Whether even if the defendants-appellants became adhivasis are they liable to be ejected under Section 231 as they cannot be deemed to have held the land within the meaning of Section 240-A?' Question No. 1, which is '1. Whether notwithstanding the expiry of the term of quabuliat on 13-5-1951 the defendants appellants continued to be the sub-tenants of the plots in suit till the commencement of U. P. Zaminda...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »