Allahabad Court September 1963 Judgments
Raghubir Singh Vs. Gram Samaj Kotra Through Ram Asrey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All394; 1964CriLJ261
ORDERS.D. Khare, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order dated 17th September, 1962, passed by a Magistrate first class, Kanpur, in a proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code directing that possession be delivered to the opposite party. A revision application filed before the Sessions Judge, Kanpur, was dismissed on 17th December, 1962.2. The facts leading to the present revision application might be briefly stated as follows.On 21st August, 1960, the Gaon Samaj had executed a patta of the laud in dispute in favour of the applicant for raising constructions. The applicant deposited ten-times of the land revenue on 14th June, 1961, for becoming its bhumidhar. On 18th January, 1962, he obtained the permission of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to raise construction on that land. It appears that the land ofwhich the patta had been granted in favour of the applicant was used by the Gaon Samaj for holding markets and had already been auctioned to acontractor under...
Tag this Judgment!The Asstt. Custodian, Evacuee Property and anr. Vs. Virendra Kumar and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All70
Manchanda, J.1. This is an application in revision by the Custodian, Evacuee Property, directed against an order of the Civil Judge, Meerut dated 23rd August, 1958, requiring the Custodian, Evacuee Property to remit the sum of Rs. 9430/-for payment to Virendra Kumar, opposite-party decree holder, in execution of his decree against Shanti Saran. The latter had filed a claim under Rule 22 of the Administration of Evacuee Property (Central Rules 1950) hereinafter referred to as the Rules, in respect of his decree for Rs. 5983/10/-against Hashmat Ali and Shaukat Hussain, since declared evacuees.2. The facts leading up to this revision are these. Opposite-Party Virendra Kumar had filed suit No. 70 of 1955 against Shanti Saran. During the pendency of this suit, Virendra Kumar applied to the court for attachment before judgment of a claim which Shanti Saran had registered under Rule 22 of the Rules, in respect of the decree for Rs. 5983/10/-obtained by him in suit No. 70 of 1955 against the s...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board Vs. Lal Chand Surajmal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All199; 1964CriLJ502
Sahgal, J.1. This is an appeal by the Municipal Board of Falzabad against an order of acquittal of the respondents passed by the Sessions Judge of Faizabad of an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 which order of acquittal was passed fay him in appeal against an order of conviction by a Magistrate.2. The respondents had a shop in mohalla Chauk in Faizabad where they sold tea and for the purpose of selling tea they stored milk also which is a necessary ingredient for the preparation of tea. Though Sewak Ram respondent is described as a proprietor and Lal Chand as the servant, it appears from the receipt Ex. Ka-3 that they are partners of the shop. On 26th October, 1961 at 8 a.m. the Food Inspector took a sample of milk purporting to be cow's milk from Lal Chand weighing 3/4th of a seer and sealed it in three bottles and paid a sum of .37 nP. to him as Its price. One of the bottles was kept by the Food Inspector, one was sent to t...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Ram Vs. Girraj Kishore and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All369
Pathak, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that a certain house was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree. The appeal came on for bearing before our learned brother Takru, who being of the opinion that an important question of law arose in the case, referred it to a larger Bench. 2. In 1946 the house was sold by the plaintiff to Pyare Lal and Deo Kumari for a sum of Rs. 3,000/-, out of which Rs. 1,500/- only were actually paid and concerning the balance the purchasers executed a simple mortgage in respect of the house in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, on May 18, 1952 Pyare Lal and Deo Kumari executed a sale deed conveying this house to the plaintiff for Rs. 3,000/- the sale deed being registered on the next day. 3. The defendant Girraj Kishore pursuant to a claimagainst Pyare Lal, instituted a suit (No. 184 of 1952)against him and on May 19, 1952 obtained an order ofattachment before judgment whereby Pyare Lal was prohi...
Tag this Judgment!Jangi Pathak and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1963
Reported in: 1965CriLJ373
S.D. Khare, J.1. These are two connected appeals, arising out of an order dated 28th February, 1962, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi, convicting all the seven appellants of both the connected appeals under Section 147 and Sections 302, 323 and 324 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and for various terms of imprisonment, ranging from six months to two years, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 324, I.P.C.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that there was a long standing enmity beginning from the year 1928, between the descendants of Shital Pathak on the one hand and those of Ajudhia Pathak, on the other. Shital Pathak and Ajudhia Pathak were real brothers, being the sons of one Hari Pathak, However from the year 1928 onwards the relations between their descendants became very much estranged. In the year 1928 Ram Chandra, descendant of Shit...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Superintendent N. Railway and anr. Vs. Madan Lal Sarad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All125
N.U. Beg, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution of India filed by the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Lucknow, and the Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Lucknow. The opposite party in this petition is Madan Lal Sarad. Madan Lal Sarad had filed Writ Petition No. 18 of 1961 impugning the validity of an order passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway Lucknow, dated the 6th October, 1960. By this order the Divisional Personnel Officer, Lucknow had reverted two persons who were acting as draftsmen in the scale of Rs. 150-225 to the scale of Rs. 100-185 from the 1st of October, 1960. One of those persons was Sri Madan Lal Sarad who is the opposite party in this petition. The other was Sri Bishun Bali. Sri Madan Lal Sarad had filed the aforesaid writ petition in this Court challenging the validity of this order on the ground that it contravened the provisions of a circular issued by the Railway Board dated...
Tag this Judgment!Haridwar Singh Vs. Ghirrau Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All311
Desai, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed by a defendant against whom a decree for possession, has been passed in the following circumstances. The respondent was a co-sharer in a village. He and some co-sharers of the village had a joint sir-holding which included the land in dispute in this appeal. By a private arrangement among the joint sir-holders the land in dispute was in the exclusive occupation of the respondent. Thus though he and some co-sharers jointly owned the land in dispute it was by private arrangement among them in the sole cultivation of the respondent. On 12-10-1944 he mortgaged it with possession with the appellant for 10 years; it was agreed between the parties that the mortgage would be satisfied from the usufruct in 10 years and that thereafter the appellant would restore the respondent to possession. The appellant entered into cultivatory possession of the land in dispute and continued to be in possession till the date on which the present suit was instituted aga...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All439; [1964]52ITR745(All)
Desai, C.J.1. This is a statement of a case submitted to this Court by the Revision Board under Section 24 (4) of the U P. Agricultural Income-tax Act; this Court is called upon to answer the following questions:(1) Whether the revision application moved by the State on 15-9-1951 against the order passed by the Assessing Authority on 20-7-1950 was belated or not within the meaning of Section 22 of the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act? (2) Where the amounts spent on the following items; (1) Farm Manager's pay (2) Cashier's pay (3) Time Keeper's pay (4) Fieldman's pay were permissible items of expenditure Under Section 6 (2) (b) (iv), U. P. Agricultural Income Tax Act and Rule 13, U. P. Agricultural Income Tax Rules? 2. The facts as they emerge from the statement are that on 20-7-1950 the assessing authority passed an assessment order holding that the total agricultural income of the assessee was less than the taxable minimum and directing refund of the tax already realised from it ...
Tag this Judgment!Jugul Kishore and anr. Vs. Gobardhan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All548
Pathak, J.1. These are two judgment-debtors' appeals arising out of execution proceedings.2. Ram Samp Nanhumal and Madan Mohan Goverdhan Lal filed suit No. 389 of 1934 against Behari Lal and Jugal Kishore for money due on a promissory note in the High Court at Rangoon, and the suit was decreed on Sept 14, 1934. A decree for Rs 21,247/- was drawn up by the Rangoon High Court which granted a certificate on July 23, 1936 to the decree-holders to execute the decree. On October 21, 1936, the decree-holders moved an execution application (Execution Case No. 120 of 1936) before the Court at Kanpur seeking execution of the decree by attachment and sale of two properties, 47/65 Swadeshi Bazar and 48/121 Generalganj, both situate in Kanpur Shortly thereafter an order directing execution was passed upon that application, and on March 12, 1937 proceedings under Order 21, Rule 66 of the C. P. C. were commenced.3. On February 16, 1938 Ram Sarup Nanhumal, one of the decree-holders died and on account...
Tag this Judgment!Algu Ram and anr. Vs. Bishunath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All530
Desai, C.J.1. This application purporting to be for modification of an order passed by A. P Srivastava, J. on 2-8-1962 was placed before our brother D.S. Mathur, who by his order dated 28-8-1963 has referred it to a Bench for decision of the question whether it can be disposed of by a single Judge or must be disposed of by a Bench. The question arose because of the retirement of A.P. Srivastava. J. who had passed the order sought to be modified. Ch. V Rule 12 of Rules of Court is to the effect that 'an application for the review of a judgmentshall be presented to the Registrar, who shall...lay the same... before the Judge or Judges bywhom such judgment was delivered... If suchJudge or Judges... be no longer attached tothe Court, the application shall be laid before theChief Justice who shall, having regard to the provisions of Rule 5 nominate a Bench for thehearing of such application'Sri G.D Srivastava contended that his application is for review of a judgment governed by Ch. V Rule 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »