Allahabad Court August 1963 Judgments
Prem Nath Khanna Vs. Chief Inspector
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ87
ORDERR.A. Misra, J.1. The applicant, as also the point raised for decision, in both these revision petitions is the same and I, therefore, propose to dispose of them together.2. On complaints filed by Sri M. Qizilbash, Chief Inspector of Factories, U. P., the applicant Sri Prem Nath Khanna is being prosecuted in two cases separately Under Section 92 of the U. P. Factories' Act, 1948 for The contravention of Rules 102 and 103 of the U. P. Factories' Rules, 1950. The cases proceeded for several hearings and eventually they were fixed for 21-8-1951. On that date the applicant applied in both the cases that since the complainant had not attended the Court on the previous hearings of the cases and he was absent on that date also, the complaints should be dismissed and the applicant should be acquitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 247 Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate rejected these applications.3. Aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate the applicant filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Mulk Raj Malhotra Vs. Thakat Mal Sethi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All72
Asthana, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Additional Tribunal Judge of Dehradun dated 20th August 1956 returning the application of the petitioner appellant filed under Section 5 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, Act No. 70 of 1951, for presentation to the proper court.2. The appellant, Mulak Raj, claiming himself to be a displaced debtor within the meaning of Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, filed an application under Section 5 of the Act in the Court of the Civil Judge, Dehradun who was invested with the powers of the Tribunal under Section 4 of the Act. The application was filed on 20th May 1952 and in para 1 of the application it was pleaded as follows: 'That he (applicant) is at present residing at 1, Circular Road, Dehradun'. In para 3 of his application the applicant pleaded that he had been carrying on his business as a Government contractor in the Military department of the Government ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaggu Vs. Manni Prasad Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All202
S.N. Katju, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 2040/-representing principal and interest on account of money advanced to the appellant by the respondent on the basis of a promote and receipt dated 2-1-1902. It was alleged that the appellant had borrowed Rs. 1,500/- from the respondent and had agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 2/- per cent per mensem and had executed a promote dated 2-1-1952. The respondent alleged that the amount due on the aforesaid loan had not been paid and, therefore, the suit in appeal was instituted. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that noamount had been advanced by the respondent to the appellant and that the appellant's signatures had been obtained by one Moti Lal on a blank pronote. The appellant, however, admitted thathe received only Rs. 150/- and alleged that subsequently the amount of Rs. 150/- was converted into Rs. 1500/-. The trial Court held that there was not sufficient evidence to establish...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Charan Lal Ram NaraIn Vs. Income-tax Officer, Etawah, and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1963
Reported in: [1965]56ITR316(All)
This is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The prayer is for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the recovery certificate dated 17th March, 1961, issued by the Income-tax Officer, District I(vii), Kanpur, to the Collector, Etawah, and for a mandamus restraining the Collector, Etawah, from realising the tax for the assessment year 1955-56, covered by the certificate dated 17th March, 1961.The material facts leading up to this petition are these : The petitioner was assessed on an income of Rs. 16,939.78 nP. by the Income-tax Officer, District I(vii), Kanpur, as a Hindu undivided family : vide assessment order in respect of the relevant assessment year 1955-56. The said assessment order was made at Kanpur. In pursuance of the said order a notice of demand dated the 29th February, 1960, was served upon the petitioners counsel on the 22nd of March, 1960, requiring the petitioner to deposit the said amount of tax of Rs. 16,939.78 nP. on or before the 20th...
Tag this Judgment!Basanta and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All120; 1965CriLJ267
ORDERGyanendra Kumar, J.1. Eight accused persons had filed this revision. The application on behalf of the other six persons was dismissed by this Court on 22-11-1962 but the revision application of Ranjit and Jal Singh applicants alone was admitted. 2. Two points have been urged by the learned counsel for these applicants. Firstly, that P. W. Vikram Singh had stated that Ranjit and Jal Singh applicants had bhalas, the edges of which were round, while P. W. Baru Singh and Chhatter Singh stated that Jal Singh and Basanta had ballams while Ranjit had a bhala. The medical evidence shows that there was no injury from a pointed weapon. According to Dr. Prem Prakash, P. W. Baru Singh had 24 injuries out of which 2 were incised wounds. P. W. Chhatter Singh had seven injuries out of which only one was incised wound. P. W. Vikram Singh had three injuries all of which were caused by some blunt weapon. P. W. Vikram Singh who had received only lathi injuries might not have precisely observed the n...
Tag this Judgment!Gorakh Lal Vs. Maha Prasad NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All260
B. Dayal, J.1. These Second Appeals have been referred to a run Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court for decision of one single question of law which arises in each one of them. All these appeals arise out of suits filed by the landlord for the ejectment of his tenant and the question for consideration is whether a thirty days notice of ejectment under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as amended by U.P. Act No. XXIV of 1954 was valid in each case. Apart from the validity or invalidity of the notice for ejectment no other question was pressed before the learned single judge nor has any other question been raised before us in the Full Bench. Thus, that is the only point which requires consideration in these appeals. We would deal with the general question first and then dispose or the individual appeals.2. The relevant part of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act after its amendment by the said U. P. Act is as follows:'In the absence of a contract or local usag...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Inspector of Stamps Vs. Mrs. Panzy Feruandas, Major Widow of H. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All66
N.U. Beg, J.1. This is an application under Article 133(i)(c) of the Constitution of India. The applicantin this application is the Chief Inspector of Stamps, U. P., Allahabad.The opposite party is Mrs. Panzy Fernandas, widow of one Sri H. Johnson, who died onthe 19th November, 1958. After his death hissister and brother gave a petition under Section 278of the Indian Succession Act (Act XXXIX of1925) praying for the grant of letters of Administration in their favour. This petition wascontested by his widow Mrs. Panzy Fernandas.The District Judge of Lucknow by his order dated the 7th November, 1959, allowed the petition. Dissatisfied with the said order the widow of the deceased, namely Mrs. Panzy Fernandas, filed an appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act in the High Court. This is F. A. F. O. No. 57 of 1962. The memorandum of appeal was presented in the office for preliminary endorsements on the 21st December, 1959. On the same date the Stamp Reporter of the High Court m...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Mohammad Sana Ullah and Sons Vs. Firm Haji Rahim Bux and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All49
Desai, C.J.1. This is an application for certificates mentioned in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution. The applicants are decree-holders auction-purchasers. The judgment-debtors, who are the opposite parties, applied under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, for the setting aside of a sale of their house valued at more than Rs. 20,000/-. They did not give any security as required under proviso (b) to Rule 90 of Order 21. But after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing an objection they applied to the executing Court for dispensing with the security. This Court held that their application for the security being dispensed with was in order. The executing Court thereupon dispensed with the security but subsequently, on an objection by the applicants, it dismissed the objection of the judgment-debtors on the ground that it was not accompanied by security and the application for dispensing with the security had been filed after the expiry of time...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›