Allahabad Court February 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.
Uma Shankar Mehrotra Vs. Kanodia Brothers and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All409
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J. 1. This is a revision under Section 115, C. P. C. by Uma Shankar Mehrotra against the order dated 5-12-1962 of the First Civil Judge of Kanpur, framing two issues for trial and determination as necessary under Order XXI, Rule 50(2). C. P. C.2. The material facts of the case are that Messrs. Kanodia Brothers Kanpur, obtained an ex parte decree against Messrs. S. Varma, Kanpur, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,500. Messrs. S. Varma defendant, was to be served through the proprietors. Bhupat Prasad and Uma Shankar Mehrotra. They put in appearance, but Uma Shankar Mehrotra denied to be a partner or proprietor of the defendant-firm. The ex parte decree was passed on 6-7-1955. It was on 27-7-1957 that the decree-holder applied. For execution of the decree by the attachment of the salary of Uma Shankar Mehrotra on the supposition that the case was covered by Clauses (b) and (c) of Order XXI, Rule 50(1), C. P. C. The executing court recorded the finding that without the...
Babulal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All204; 1966CriLJ390
ORDERGyanendra Kumar, J.1. These are two connected revisions filed by the accused persons. Revision No. 375 of 1964 has been filed by Babu Lal and Balwant Singh partners of firm 'Babu Lal Balwant Singh', while revision No. 376 of 1964 has been filed by Balwant Singh, Tirlok Chand, Chiranji Lal and Babu Lal who are partners of M/s. 'Balwant Singh Hari Kishan'. The two firms aforesaid were carrying on the business of forward contracts in silver and gold at Meerut. Both the firms were registered as 'dealers' under the U. P. Sales Tax Act and were assessed on their turn-over for the purposes of Sales Tax on forward contracts between them and their customers. Under bona fide mistake of fact and law the accused dealers had realised sales tax from their customers on forward contracts during the years 1948 to 1954. In their turn the accused had deposited the desired amount of tax with the Government. Later on a firm of Hapur styled as M/s. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash had filed writ petition No. 7...
Bairagi Ram Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All92
L. Prasad, J.1. This is a special appeal from the judgment, dated August 23, 1963, of a learned single Judge dismissing the appellants petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notice, dated 20th May 1961, by which respondent No. 3 terminated the services of the appellant and for ordering the respondents to treat the appellant as continuing In service.2. Sri Bairagi Ram, the appellant, was recruited as a temporary Sub-Inspector by the respondent No. 3 on 1st January, 1956. It appears that while he was posted at Police Station, Goshainganj, he was suspended on a charge of illegal detention of a person at thepolice station and tried departmentally under Section 7 of the Police Act but subsequently he was reinstated and the proceedings were dropped. In 1961 he was posted as Second Officer at Police Station, Pisawan. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lucknow Range, Lucknow, namely, respondent No. 3 on the occasion of his winter inspection in 1961 made an adverse...
Hansraj Chawala Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ320
ORDERGyanendra Kumar, J.1. The applicant was prosecuted under Section 21 read with Section 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 on a complaint D/- 13-8-1964 hide by the District Magistrate of Allahabad charging the accused of excavating and carrying away silica (glass) sand from a specified area on 26-8-64 without any authority, permission or license, in contravention of Section 4(1) of the said Act, The case was registered on 7-9-1964 and notice was issued to the accused, who appeared before the trying Magistrate on 21-10-1964. It was admittedly a summons case. Under the provisions of Section 242, Criminal P.C. the accused should have been questioned forthwith as to why he should not be convicted, when he had appeared on 21-10-1964 before the Magistrate for the first time, but this was not done. The District Magistrate, who was the complainant, was not present. Hence the complaint was liable to be dismissed and the accused acquitted on that very day as...
Mst. Rabba Bibi and anr. Vs. Sub-divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ820
ORDERS.C. Manchanda, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution by Rabba Babba Bibi, widow of Masih Uddin and Firoz Ahmad the son-in-law of Masih Uddin. The relief sought is for the quashing of the orders of the Munsif, West Allahabad dated the 19th May 1959, the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chail dated the 13th August 1963 and the order dated the 13th of January 1964 passed by the Second Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Allahabad.2. The facts leading up to this writ petition are involved and litigation between the parties has been protracted. A further complication has been that Mohd. Mustafa, the son of Masih Uddin, the original sub-tenant now opposite party No. 4 is in service in Pakistan. Raj Narain and Swamp Narain two brothers were tenants in chief. Masih Uddin was recorded as sub-tenant. He died in 1955 leaving behind the aforesaid son Mohd. Mustafa and widow, Smt. Rabba Bibi and the daughter who is married to Firoz Ahmad petitioner No. 2, After...
Abu Bakar and Anr. Vs. District Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All12
S.K. Verma, J. 1. A Division Bench of this Court has referred three questions for answers by a larger Bench. This Full Bench has been constituted for that purpose. The three questions referred are these;--1. Whether Rule 115 of the Rules framed under the Co-operative Societies Act is ultra vires the powers of the Government in so far as it authorises the reference of a dispute between the Society or its committee and any officer of the society to the Registrar to be decided by the Registrar himself or by an arbitrator nominated by the Registrar 2. In case the answer to the above question is in the negative, whether the expression 'officer' must ne construed as including a past officer ? 3. If so, whether past officer must be construed as referring only to a person who was an officer of the society until the dispute arose, but had ceased to be an officer before the dispute was referred by the society, or also to a person who was an officer at the time business of the society which gave...
Dr. (Mrs.) Shabbir Fatima and ors. Vs. the Chancellor, University of A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All45
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioners, who are lecturers of the University of Allahabad, pray for a writ in the nature of quo-warranto to enquire from the Chief Justice of this Court and Sri Sri Prakash by what authority they purport to act as members of the Committee constituted under Section 11 (4) of the Allahabad University Act and for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Chancellor not to accept the recommendations made by the Committee so constituted.2. The University of Allahabad was established and incorported by the Allahabad University Act, 1887. It is presently governed by the Allahabad University Act, 1921. The Vice-Chancellor, who is a wholetime officer of the University, and its principal executive and academic officer, is appointed by the Chancellor of the University under the Act which provides the mode of appointment. The Act has been amended from time to time, and for reasons which it is not necessary to mention here, the provision laying down the procedure gove...
Mrs. K.L. Sahgal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1965
Reported in: AIR1965All465
Pathak J.1. The question before this Bench for its opinion is:'When the State Government deals with a proceeding under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act under Section 7-F of the same Act, does the State Government act administratively or in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity?'2. The petitioner is in occupation of a portion of a house, No. 7/152, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur, as the tenant of the fourth respondent, Mrs. Kalindri Mitter, who is the owner of that house. Mrs. Mitter applied under Section 3 (1) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, for permission to sue the petitioner for her eviction. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer granted permission. The petitioner applied in revision to the Commissioner, Allahabad, but the latter upheld the grant of permission. Then the petitioner applied to the State Government. On June 27, 1961, the State Government, acting under Section 7-F, conside...
The New Victoria Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Rohini Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All130; [1965(10)FLR256]
ORDERSatish Chandra, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The main prayer is that the award, dated 16-3-1959 be quashed and for consequential reliefs.2. The petitioner is a company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of cotton goods.3. For an incident which happened in the evening of 4th July 1958 Rohini Kumar, the first respondent, who was at that time working as gate clerk in the petitioner company, was charge-sheeted for misconduct. Under Standing Order 23 (c) which applied to the clerks employed by the petitioner company, taking or giving bribe or any illegal gratification was a misconduct for which the workmen could be dismissed. One of the charges related to the taking of bribe. The charge-sheet was served on Sri Rohini Kumar on 10th July 1958. On 14th July 1958, Sri Rohini Kumar submitted his explanation denying the allegation. The explanation was considered unsatisfactory and an enquiry was directed to be instituted.The enquiry was conduct...
Harbir Singh Vs. Ali Hasan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All161; 1966CriLJ377
ORDERSatish Chandra, J. 1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It prays that the delay in filing the petition for Special leave to appeal under Section 417 (3), Cr. P. C. be condoned.2. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is inapplicable to a petition for leave under Section 417 (3), Cr. P. C. and as such the application is not maintainable.3. Under the Limitation Act of 1908 there was a difference of opinion in the various High Courts as to the ipterpretation of Section 29(2) of that Limitation Act. Some High Courts including the majority of a Full Bench of this High Court took the view that the Criminal Procedure Code was not a local or special law within the meaning of Section 29 of the Limitation Act. Other High Courts held to the contrary. The Supreme Court in Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh, AIR 1964 SC 260, settled the controversy and held that Section 417 (3) and (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »