Allahabad Court April 1965 Judgments
Vir Singh Vs. Nihal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All300
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal from the decree of the Civil Judge of Bijnor reversing that of the Munsif. Bijnor and thereby dismissing the suit for recovery of damages from the defendant respondents for malicious prosecution. 2. The facts are these. The plaintiff-appellant Vir Singh alleged that the defendants bore him ill-will as a result of several incidents which were mentioned in the plaint; that they were on the look out for an opportunity to do him harm, that they entered into a conspiracy in pursuance of which they persuaded the plaintiff to accompany them to the police station Noorpur by misrepresenting to him that the Station Officer wanted his presence in connection with some Panchayati document; that the plaintiff accompanied the defendants to the police station but was arrested and locked up immediately on his arrival there; that he was kept under custody for a few days and then prosecuted for the offence of being in possession of a revolver without ...
Tag this Judgment!Dau Dayal and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All237
Asthana, J. 1. The petitioners are the enure holders of plots No. 74, .99 acres in area and Nos. 58, 59 and 73, 2.6 acres in area situate in mauza Hamirpur, Pargana Hamirpur, district Hamirpur. It appears that the said plots lie almost in the abadi of Hamirpur Town. A Co-operative Society known as the Co-operative Housing Society Limited has been formed by certain persons whose object is to construct residential houses for its members on no profit, no loss basis. The said society applied to the State Government to acquire land for it for the purpose of fulfilling its object of constructing houses. By a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated July 8, 1957 published in the Utter Pradesh Gazette, dated 13th July 1957, the Collector of Hamirpur notified for general information that the abovesaid plot No. 74, .99 acres in area was needed for a public purpose. This notification against the heading 'for what purpose required' mentioned for cons...
Tag this Judgment!State Through Nagar Mahapalika Vs. Prem Prakash Jauhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1110
M.H. Beg, J.1. The appellant in the three appeals before me is stated to be: 'State through Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi through its Up Nagar Adhikari'. Each of the three appeals is directed against a common order of acquittal by a Magistrate First Class, Varanasi in three cases under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Adulteration of Food Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The complaint in each case was filed by the Food Inspector of the Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi. The accused in each of the three cases is common. The facts which gave rise to the prosecution in each case seem to have come to the notice of the Food Inspector on the same visit of the Food Inspector on the morning of 7th May, 1962, at about 10 A.M. to the shop of the respondent who was found selling some aerated water, some ice-cream, and some bread without having taken out licences from the Mahapalika for selling these articles of food. Three prosecutions were instituted in respect of the three articles of food separate...
Tag this Judgment!State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Chhotey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All327
Dhavan, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh from the concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for recovery of Rs. 1000 as compensation for 16 bags of sugar (shakkar) which were seized by a police official in the employ of the appellant State and never returned to the plaintiff The facts as alleged by the plaintiff are these. On 17-1-1947 the plaintiff Chhotey Lal was transporting 67 bags of shakkar and two of bhur from Shikarpur to Raghupura in a motor truck When the truck reached the police station Kakore it was stopped by the police. They arrested the plaintiff and seized all the bags on the alleged ground that 16 of them contained khandsari sugar of which the movement was banned under the U. P. Control of Supplies (Temporary power) Ordinance, II of 1946. The plaintiff, protested and said that the 16 bags contained not khandsari but shakkar the movement of which was not banned. The plaintiff's version is that all 67 bags were...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Intizar Ahmad Vs. State Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All383
Dwivedi, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the order of the State Transport Authority, Lucknow. The order suspends his permit for a stage carriage for a period of two months.2. The petitioner operates his stage carriage on Budaun-Bilsi-Sahaswan route. On October 20, 1959, the Regional Transport Officer checked his vehicle on the route and detected several violations of the law. On October 20, 1959 he passed an order suspending forthwith the petitioner's permit and asking him to show cause why the permit should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Thereafter his case came up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly. After hearing him the Regional Transport Authority passed a composite order on November 25, 1959. The Regional Transport Authority suspended his permit for two months: in lieu of suspension ho was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 500 on or before December 10, 1959, failing which the order of suspension would come into operation. He de...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Lal Vs. R.R. Sinha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All394; 1967CriLJ980
ORDERG. Kumar, J.1. Pannalal has filed this application for proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act against Sri R. K. Sinha, Sessions Judge, Fatehpur. In April 1960 the applicant had published a pamphlet alleged to be containing a defamatory matter against the then District Planning Officer and Harijan Welfare Officer. Fatehpur. with the result that on 5-10-1960 the Public Prosecutor instituted two complaints against Pannalal under Section 500 I. P. C. which were registered as Special Trial nos. 3 and 4 of 1900 Both the cases were being heard together and ultimately 27-7-64 was fixed for defence evidence On 27-7-64 the applicant, instead of adducing defence evidence, moved applications in both the cases raising a preliminary objection that the sanction granted by the State Government for prosecuting the applicant was not according to law; hence the court could not proceed further with those cases Thereupon the Sessions Judge (Sri R. K. Sinha) ordered that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Bhim Sen Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All247
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J. 1. This is a revision under Section 115 C. P. C. by Bhim Sen against the order of the Tribunal under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act (to be referred hereinafter as the Act) allowing an application under Section 13 of the Act of Ram Lal, who was represented after his death by his widow Smt. Savitri Devi alias Sushila Rani, opposite party,for the recovery of the arrears of rent with interest due from the present applicant. 2. The case of Ram Lal, and also of Smt. Savitri Devi, was that they were displaced persons within the meaning of the Act and they had the right to take recourse under Section 18 of the Act for the recovery of the arrears of rent of a house which had been leased to Bhim Sen. Bhim Sen admitted that he was not a displaced person, nor was he a displaced debtor, within the meaning of the Act. But he challenged the right of Ram Lal and also Smt. Savitri Devi in moving the application. These objections did not appeal to the Tribunal and thei...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Lal Sayal Vs. Prem Shanker
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All377
Dhavan, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal from the decree of the Second Additional Civil Judge of Meerut awarding the plaintiff respondent a sum of Rs. 1,000 as damages for slander. It raises several questions of law, including constitutional law, of general importance. The factual findings of the lower appellate Court were not challenged in this appeal and its decree was assailed on legal and constitutional grounds; but it is necessary to relate very briefly the facts which have led to thissuit. An inquiry was instituted against one R. L. Bansal, Agent of the Allahabad Bank Ghaziabad, on the application of an employee of the Bank, Tara Chand. The defendant-appellant Purushottam Lal Siyal (hereinafter called Siyal), represented Tara Chand in that inquiry which was conducted by the Regional Officer of the Bank who was sent from Delhi. R. L. Bansal, as agent of the Ghaziabad branch, had made a report against Tara Chand complaining that his behaviour to the customers was unsatisfa...
Tag this Judgment!Kanpur Industrial Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1965
Reported in: [1966]59ITR407(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - The following question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, at the assessees instance under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act :'Whether on a proper construction of rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946, the assessee respondent having not appealed against the order of the Appellates appeal before the Tribunal, that the entire profit arising out of the sale of land was not liable to assessmen ?'The facts as given in the statement of the case by the Tribunal are these : The assessee purchased certain land which was subsequently acquired by the State Government on behalf of the Development Board, Kanpur, for Rs. 10,000 and immediately the Development Board gave a part of it to him on lease for 999 years on a nominal rent after receiving the premium of Rs. 10,000. He was permitted to sell the land to anybody as a freehold property and accordingly he sold a major part of it during the accounting year for Rs. 1,26,...
Tag this Judgment!Khurjawala Buckles Mfg. Co. Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All378; [1965]16STC778(All)
ORDERS. Chandra, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prays that the assessment orders passed by Sri. V.D. Singh, Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Aligarh, for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 under the U. P. Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act be quashed. When the petition came up for hearing an objection as to the maintainability of a single petition inasmuch as it sought to challenge four assessment orders, was raised. Brother Manchanda considered the question to be one of importance. He referred it to a Division Bench. The Division Bench held that one writ petition for the quashing of two assessment orders pertaining to two assessment years or one petition for the quashing of the two assessment orders under two different taxing statutes, even though the assessee is the same and the assessing authority is the same cannot be entertained. When the case came back before the single Judge the petitioner filed three additional sets of court fees to regulari...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »