Allahabad Court October 1964 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mahipal Singh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1964
Reported in: 1966CriLJ323
ORDERH.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Mainpuri, directing each of the applicants to pay a sum of Rs. 500/. as penalty for the forfeiture of their surety bonds.2. Applicants had stood sureties in the amount of Rs. 2000/- each for one Daya Ram who was an accused in the Sessions Trial No. 28 of 1962 pending before the Sessions Court at Mainpuri. 22nd of July 1963 was the date fixed for hearing of the trial but Daya Ram did not appear in Court. On that date his sureties, the two applicants, filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge stating therein that Daya Ram had been in jail since the last 1 1/2 years in connection with a case which had ended in his conviction from the Court of Sessions at Fatehgarh and that they had come to know that while he was being escorted by the police from District Jail Fatehgarh to his Court in connection with the case he escaped from their custody and disappeared. The appl...
State Vs. Gulab Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All300; 1965CriLJ58
Uniyal, J.1. One sheo Shanker Singh, along with nine others, was charged with offences under Sections 147 and 148, and Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149, I. P. C. in S. T. No. 23 of 1961 in the court of the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in respect of an occurrence dated 20-11-1960 resulting in the death of Tarak Nath, Pande and injuries to two others. The accused pleaded a right of private defence of property and adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. One of the documents filed in evidence by them was a complaint Ex. Kha-73 alleged to have been Instituted by Sheo Bhanker on 18-11-1960 in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Chunar, District Mirzapur to the effect that P. W. Kishore, accompanied by Tarak Nath Pandey and several other men, had unlawfully and forcibly cut and removed paddy crop from plot No. 733 of village Semara Barch belonging to the accused.2. The learned Sessions Judge found that the paddy crop standing on plot No. 733 aforesaid had been ...
Gobind Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All480
Gangeshwar Prasad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1880-5-0 as damages for loss of goods on the railway. The case of the plaintiff was that on 30th December 1948 he hooked three packages containing 'Chappals' from Rawatpur, a station on B. B. & C. I. Railway; for carriage to Barhanpur, a station on G. I. P. Railway, and to be delivered there to M/s Raj Brothers. The consignment reached Barhanpur but M/s Raja Brothers did not take delivery whereupon the plaintiff got it rebooked on 20th April 1949 for being carried to Kanpur and delivered there to the plaintiff. On 24th May 1949 the plaintiff presented the railway receipt for taking delivery but when he saw the packages he found them in a broken condition. He therefore, took open delivery on 26th May 1949 and it was then discovered that the packages contained grass and bricks instead of Chappals. The plaintiff claimed to have suffered a loss of Rs. 1880-5-0 and he brought this suit on 20th ...
Rasool Ahmad Vs. Beni Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All514
Gangeshwar Prasad, J.1. The two suits which have given rise to these appeals are the third in the series of actions raised by the plaintiff in respect of the same land and against the same persons or their representatives in interest.2. In 1954 Rasool Ahmad plaintiff filed a group of eight suits (hereinafter described as the 1954 suits under Section 59/183 of the U. P. Tenancy Act of 1939 in the revenue court with the allegation that he was a tenant of the land in suit but defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had got leases in respect of it executed by the remaining defendants who were the Zamindars and were interfering with the possession of the plaintiff on the strength of the said leases which were invalid and of no legal effect. The plaintiff sought a declaration that he was a hereditary tenant of the land in suit and also prayed for restoration of possession in case he was found to be out of possession. The defence was that the plaintiff was not a tenant of the land in suit and was not in poss...
Sagar Mal Poddar Vs. Amir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1966All103
D.P. Uniyal, J.1. These are two connected appeals by the plaintiff and arise out of the same judgment.2. The facts giving rise to the present suit are as follows. On 15-X-1944 an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 by which the latter agreed to sell the house in dispute to the plaintiff. The plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 200/- with defendant No. 2 by way of earnest money. Despite the agreement aforesaid defendant No. 2 sold the house in question to defendant No. 1 on 13-12-1944. Thereupon the plaintiff instituted suit No. 26 of 1945 against both the defendants for specific performance of the contract. This suit was decreed on 25-2-1946. There was an appeal to the High Court and during the pendency of the appeal the defendant No. 1 was permitted to deposit a sum of Rs. 800/- by way of mesne profits of the housein dispute. The appeal of defendant No. 1 eventually failed and it wits held that the amount of Rs. 8,300/- deposited in court towards the sale...
Nagar Swatha Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika Vs. Ant Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1966All32
S.N. Katju, J. 1. The respondent was charged for the offence of selling or exposing Jalebi prepared in hydroginated vegetable oil for sale which was found to be coloured with a coal-tar-dye, namely Orange II, which is not one of the coal-tar-dyes permitted for use in food stuffs. It was alleged that the respondent was liable fur punishment under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954. The Food Inspector had purchased a sample fruit' the respondent and divided it into three pans, one of which was given to the respondent and one part was sent to the Public Analyst who found that it was coloured with coal-tar-dye Orange II. It was admitted that the quantity of the sample which was sent to the Public Analyst was II ounces. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that there was non-compliance of Rule 20 of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which under item (14) required that the approximate quantity to be taken should be 16 ounces. ...
Ram Kumar Ram Chandra and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1966All100; [1965]58ITR721(All)
Pathak, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The assessee is a registered firm consisting of six partners, one of whom, Nanhi Devi, enjoys a share of four annas in the firm. On Bhaclo Sudi 13, Sambat 2010, the account of Nanhi Devi in the books of the assessee firm disclosed an opening credit balance of Rupees 1,57,056-14-6. On the same day, her account was debited with a sum of Rs. 1,01,000 and various sums totalling this amount were credited in the accounts of different persons in the books of the firm, among them being a sum of Rs. 15,000 credited in the account of the deity Sri Parmanand Behariji Maharaj. The sums were credited in these several accounts at the instance of Nanhi Devi as gifts made by her. Excepting the deity, the recipients of the remaining sums were the descendants of the brother of Nanhi Devi's husband, Nanhi Devi herself being a childless widow. The transfer entries in the cash book...
Bashi Ram Vs. Mantri Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All498
Dwivedi, J.1. Two questions referred to this Bench are :1. If in a suit instituted by a landlord for ejectment of his tenant with the permission of the District Magistrate obtained under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, the State Government on being moved by the tenant to pass an appropriate order under Section 7F on the record of the case granting permission passes an order suspending the operation of the permission, what is its effect on further proceedings in the suit pending in court ?2. If the above mentioned suit is decreed in the landlord's favour and the tenant files an appeal and during its pendency the State Government passes an order purporting to be one in exercise of the power conferred by Section 7-F directing that the permission granted by the District Magistrate would have effect after a certain date, which date is subsequent to the date of the decree under appeal, what is its effect on the decree ?2. I do not propose to answer th...
ishwar Singh Vs. Smt. Hukam Kaur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All464; 1965CriLJ449
ORDERH.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. The opposite party Smt. Hukam Kaur filed an application under Section 488, Criminal P. C. against the applicant on the allegations that the applicant was her husband, that he was neglecting her and that she was entitled to get a monthly allowance from him for maintenance. The applicant denied to have married the opposite party. Parties led evidence and the learned Magistrate held that the marriage of the applicant with the opposite party has been established, that the applicant was neglecting the opposite party and, therefore, he was liable to pay her a maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month. On revision the learned Sessions Judge has referred the case with a recommendation that the order passed by the Magistrate be set aside, because, admittedly the opposite party's previous husband Brahma Pal was alive and, therefore, there could be no legal marriage between the opposite party and the applicant entitling the opposite party to receive any maintenance....
income-tax Officer, A-ward, Dehra Dun, and Another Vs. Income-tax Appe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR634(All)
This is a writ petition by the department under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to reduce the penalty levied by passing an order under section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts leading up to this writ petition are thes :The assessee (respondent No. 2) was a partnership firm which carried on business with its head office in Dehra Dun. Its business consisted of the selling agency of Tata Mercedes Diesel Oil trucks and in the purchase and sale of motor parts and accessories. For the purpose of assessment the case of the aforesaid firm fell within the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Dehra Dun, prior to its transfer to the charge of the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Dehra Dun (petitioner No. 1). The Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Dehra Dun, who made the assessment against the assessee for the assessment year 1960-61, discovered that the assessee had suppressed its income...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »