Allahabad Court October 1965 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.
Buddha Pitai Vs. Sub-divisional Officer Malihabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1965All382; 1965CriLJ306
Desai, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Misra, J. dismissing the appellant's petition for certiorari for the quashing of an order passed by an Additional Sub-Divisional Officer setting aside under Section 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with Rule 25 of the Panchayat Raj Rules the election of the appellant to the office of Pradhan of A Gaon Sabha. This special appeal came up for hearing befofe two of us who referred it to a larger bench because of certain questions of importance involved in it.2. The appellant was convicted on 27-7-82 under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and fined Rs. 100/-. He had been found guilty of mixing a prohibited colour in sweets sold to a customer. Subsequently he, Naumi Lal respondent No. 2 and two others, who are respondents 3 and 4 contested election for the office of Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha and the appellant was declared elected as Pradhan. Naumi Lal filed a petition under Section 12-C of...
Raja Ram Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All192; 1966CriLJ386
Takru, J.1. The following question has come up before this Full Bench on a reference by Verma and Gupta, JJ.'Whether a confession recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the police had completed its investigation and submitted a charge-sheet, but before the Magisterial enquiry has commenced, is inadmissible in evidence.'2. The reference was necessitated as in the view of those learned Judges the decision in Ram Singh v. State, 1958 All LJ 660: (AIR 1959 All 518), and the cases on which it was based, required reconsideration.3. The facts giving rise to this reference are not in dispute, and, in so far as they are material for our purposes, are as follows:4. On the 8th of April 1964, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 I. P. C. treating him asan absconcler. The appellant was subsequently arrested at Malda in West Bengal on the 3rd of May 1964, and his confession was recorded by a First Class Magistrate the...
Taj Pal Singh Vs. Desai (M.C.) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1965
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ292All
V.G. Oak, J.1. The question for consideration in this writ petition is whether a Government Servant is entitled to have the assistance of a lawyer during a departmental enquiry. Te] Pal Singh is the petitioner. Ha worked as District Judge at Etah from August 1661 to July 1963. Sri R.S. Misra was posted as Civil Judge at Etah. In June 1964 the District Judge made a confidential report to the Registrar of the High Court against Sri R.S. Misra. Against that report Sri R.S. Miara made a representation to the High Court in November 1963. It was stated in the representation that the District Judge was annoyed with one clerk, Mathur. The petitioner suggested to the Superintendent of Police that some clothes should be planted in Mathur's house. Subsequently Mathur's house should be searched. In this way Mathur should be falsely implicated. In view of those allegations contained in the representation of Sri R.S. Misra, the High Court started a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The pe...
Jagdish Gandhi Vs. Legislative Council Through Its Chairman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All291
N.U. Beg, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Jagdish Gandhi. The opposite-parties in this petition are:--1. Legislative Council, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, through its Chairman, 2. Chairman, Legislative Council, U. P., Lucknow, 3. Marshal, Legislative Council, U. P. Lucknow, and 4. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. 2. The allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition are that he is the Manager of the City Montessori School. Lucknow, having branches all over the city and that about 2,500 children are studying in the various branches of the City Montessori School, apart from 50 trainees who are receiving teachers' training This institution is recognised by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, and has a very good reputation throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner has further alleged that Smt. Savitri Shyam, a member of the Legislative Council, U. P., (hereinafter referred to as 'the House'), delivered a speech in the Mouse...
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Balwant Singh Birdhi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ362All
M.H. Beg, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against an acquittal of Balwant Singh Birdhi, manager of two factories, Modi Torch Works and Modi Hurricane Lantern Factory, from a charge under Rule 123 of the Uttar Pradesh Factories Rules, 1950. Two complaints were filed before the trial Court. They were identically worded except that one complaint was with respect to tho non-production of the inspection book relating to Modi Torch Works, Modinagar, and the other was with respect to the non-production of the inspection book of Modi Hurricane Lantern Factory. The demand for the inspection books of the two factories was made at one and the same time by the same inspector and the two cases could well have been the subject-matter of a single trial by virtue of the provisions of either Section 235, Criminal Procedure Code, or in any case, of Section 234 (1), Criminal Procedure Code. The learned magistrate, who tried the two case3 separately, recorded evidence in the two cases separately, but ...
Amir Chand Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1965
Reported in: [1966]17STC76(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by proceedings against him for recovery of sales tax assessed by the Sales Tax Officer against a firm, Messrs Kapoor Bros., for the assessment year 1957-58. The petitioner alleges that he was not a member of the firm, was not disclosed by it as such, and he had no notice of the assessment proceedings or of the consequent notice of demand.2. The petitioner carries on business under the name Madan Lal Jitendra Kumar at Agra. He is assessed to sales tax in respect of that business. It is alleged that one Pran Nath Kapoor carried on business under the name Messrs Kapoor Bros. The dealer was registered at Firozabad under Section 8-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and a registration certificate for the assessment year 1957-58 was issued. It was issued upon an application made under Rule 54 by Pran Nath Kapoor in which he declared himself to be the sole proprietor of the business. It is said that certain proceedings of assessment for the months of Octo...
Shanker Flour, Rice and Dal Mills (Through Rameswar Nath, Partner) Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1965
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ807All
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner, Shanker Flour, Rice and Dal Mills, Bareilly, is a partnership firm carrying on the business of flour-milling. On 12 September 1960 it framed three charges against one of its workmen, Mani Ram, the charges being:(1) That he demanded Rs. 2 as subscription for the union from Sri Sahib Singh, chaukidar, on 30 August 1960, in the karkhana and on his refusal to pay the same quarrelled with him and held out threats.(2) That when Sri Sahib Singh did not pay the subscription he was threatened and in order to harass him, began to heap refuse in front of his quarter from 3 September 1960 and on his protest did not stop it.(3) That on account of his negligence there was a breakdown in the boiler from 19 to 23 August 1960 and thereafter the working of the engine was also adversely affected and from the investigation of it all from an outside engineer it was found that the defect in the working of the boiler was there from several days before the breakdown and as a ...
Prem NaraIn Agarwal and Another, Advocates and Receivers of John Mills ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR57(All)
The short question for decision upon this petition is whether the petitioners, appointed by the court as joint receivers upon the decease of the previous receiver, can be assessed in respect of income chargeable for an assessment year prior to their appointment.Once upon a time, the John family were the exclusive owners of three spinning mills and one roller flour mill, all situated at Agra, and popularly known as the John Mills of Agra. During the passage of time, with the vicissitude of fortune, the exclusive ownership of the John family gave way to co-ownership with a number of others. In 1949, one Seth Loon Karan Sethiya filed a suit for money in the court of the Civil Judge, Agra, against the co-owners. In this suit, the court appointed two receivers over the mills for the purpose of protecting and preserving them. To their powers was subsequently added the power of realising rent and income accuring from the property. Pursuant to directions issued by the court, the several mills ...
Sangam Lal Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All221
S.K. Verma, J.1. In Faulad v. State, 1961 All LJ 244: (AIR 1961 All 326), a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of V. G Oak and Kailash Prasad JJ., took the view that, until a judgment is signed and sealed after delivery in Court, it is not a Judgment and it can be changed or altered at any time before it is signed and sealed. Another Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Jagdish Sahai and G. C. Mathur JJ, doubted the correctness of the view taken in Faulad's case, 1961 All LJ 244: (AIR 1961 All 326), and for this reason the latter Bench has referred the following question for decision by a Full Bench:--'Whether, after a judgment has been orally dictated in open Court but before it is signed and sealed, it can be completely changed?'This Full Bench has been constituted for the purposes of answering the question mentioned above.2. The answer to the question depends upon the interpretation of Chapter VII rules 1 to 4 of this Court. In Faulad's case, 1961 All LT 244: (AIR 196] ...
israrul Haq and anr. Vs. Lala Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All249
S.N. Katju, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs appeal which arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,995 as arrears of rent together with pen-dente lite and future interest. 2. Admittedly defendant No. 1 took the house on rent from the plaintiffs on a monthly rent of Rs. 210. Defendant No 1 vacated the premises on 15-5-50. He paid Rs. 2,100 by two cheques to the plaintiffs on 22-5-50. The plaintiffs had instituted the suit in appeal for recovery of rent from 1-10-48 to 15 5-1950. The defendants contended inter alia that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court modifying the decree of the trial Court decreed the suit only for Rs. 315 holding that the claim for the rest of the amount was barred by limitation. Aggrieved from the aforesaid decision of the Court below the plaintiffs have come in appeal to this Court. 3. The only point for consideration is whether the claim with the exception of Rs. 315 was barred by time. Learned counsel for t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›