Allahabad Court January 1966 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.
Sahakari Ganna Samiti Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mahendra Pratap Rao
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All134
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a defendants' application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order of the IInd Addl. Munsif Deoria, rejecting their preliminary objection that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff respondent Sant Govind Rao filed a suit for a declaration that he was a validly elected delegate of particular society to the Co-operative Cane Development Society and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from electing another delegate. He alleged that he had been elected a delegate but subsequently ho received a notice from the Honorary Secretary of the Society that he could not remain a delegate, being an ex-convict, and he was removed by the District Co-operative Officer. He challenged his removal as illegal and without jurisdiction.2. The defendants resisted the suit and contended that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain it in view of Rule 115 of the Co-operativs Societies Rules 1936. The aforesaid rule prov...
Central Railway Workshop (by Works Manager) Vs. Viswanath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1966
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ717All
S.N. Katju, J.1. The sole question for consideration in this application in revision is whether the plaintiffs are workers within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Factories Act of 1948, hereinafter called the Act.2. The plaintiffs are employed in the Jhansi Central Railway Workshop, Jhansi. They are:timekeepers, who prepare the pay-sheet of the workshop staff, maintain leave accounts, dispose of settlement cases and maintain records for statistical purposes. Fourteen of the applicant-appellants detailed in annexure B of the affidavit are admittedly booth timekeepers who maintain attendance of the staff, job card particulars of the various jobs under operation, time-sheets of the staff working on various shops dealing with the production of railway spare parts, repairs, etc. Four of the applicant-appellants detailed in annexure C of the affidavit are head timekeepers, working in supervision of the applicant-appellants of the two other annexures.Section 2(0) of the Act is as follows:'w...
Chajju Lal and anr. Vs. Dr. Ram Pal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All79
S.N. Singh, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from constructing a door at the place DF 1 shown in the sketch map attached to the plaint.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs and the defendant jointly purchased a triansulai piece of land shown as ABC in the map attached with the plaint. This piece of land was in between the houses of the parties It is alleged in the plaint that in order to keep their windows and jangals open the parties jointly purchased the triangular piece of land and thereafter they mutually agreed to partition the said land and keeping in view the convenience of the parties. It was specifically agreed between the parties that defendant could open a door 9' wide at the place shown in the sketch map and that the portion DF 1 will not be constructed upon and in no case a door will be opened between DF 1. The plaintiffs went on to allege that it was further agreed between the parties that the la...
NihaluddIn Vs. Tej Pratap Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All157
ORDERG. Kumar, J.1. The facts giving rise to this application are that a case under Section 145 Cr. P.C. was pending between Nihaluddin on the one hand and Ahmadi Begum etc. on the other, in the Court of the S.D.M. Sadar, Gorakhpur. During the pendency of the case the disputed properties consisting of agricultural holdings, groves, trees and bazars etc. were attached and were placed under the supurdgi of one Ram Rekha. By his order dated 3-5-1965 the S.D.M. found that Smt. Ahmadi Begum was in peaceful possession of the disputed properties. Accordingly he ordered the release of the attach-pd properties in her favour.2. Admittedly a case under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (as it stood before its amendment by U.P. Act No. 38 of 1958) was pending between the parties in which there was a dispute of title pertaining to the properties in question. Accordingly the Consolidation Officer had referred the question of title for determination to the Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, who, in his tur...
Mohd. Bashir Vs. Azizul Qadar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All1
Bhargava, J.1. This is a second appeal filed by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court decreeing a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages after setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit.2. The house, in respect of which the suit was filed and of which the defendant-appellant is a tenant, belongs to a waqf. The father of the plaintiff-respondent was the mutwalli of the waqf. On the death of the father, according to the plaintiff-respondent, he and his brother (Raflqual Qadar) became mutwallis and used to manage the property. The appellant was admittedly the tenant of this house on a monthly rent of Rs. 4. There was a litigation in the year 1948 regarding the recovery of rent in respect of this house but it ended in favour of the appellant, the Court finding that no amount was due from the appellant as he had deposited all the rent due from him. Later, it appears that a suit under Section 92 of the Code o...
Dharti Narayan Vs. Parsidh Narayan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All152
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order of the Civil and Sessions Judge, Gyanpur (functioning as Civil Judge) confirming an order of the Munsif Gyanpur rejecting his application under Order XXI Rule 89 C. P. C. for setting aside an auction sale in execution of a decree. The applicant's property was sold in execution. The sale took place on 18th September, 1963. On 26th September he applied, under Order 21, Rule 89, for setting it aside, and on 12th October deposited the decretal amount plus 5 per cent of the purchase money. An objection was filed by the decree holder that the application was defective because the auction purchaser had not been made a party nor any notice issued to him. The execution court directed the applicant to take steps for the issue of notice to the auction purchaser by 14th November, 1963. The applicant took no steps, and on 29th November 1963, the court rejected his applica...
Chitranjan Prasad Varma and ors. Vs. the Additional Commissioner of Va ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All375
ORDERD.D. Seth, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of the following circumstances. One Mahabir Prasad, father of Smt Lal Kumari Devi, deceased was the occupancy tenant of the plots in dispute which art situate in the district of Ballia After Mahabir Prasad's death in 1928 he was succeeded bv his widow Smt. Bhagwati Kunwar who also died in 1946 leaving three daughters, namely Smt. Barmati Devi, Smt. Lal Kumari Devi and Smt. Prem Kumari Devi. Smt Barmati Devi executed a deed of gift in favour of petitioner No. 1 Sri Chitranjan Prasad Varmn and others and divested herself of the interest in the plots.After the death of Bhagwati Kunwar, widow of Mahabir Prasad, Smt. Lalita Kumari and Smt. Ramanandi Devi, co-widows of one Gajadhar Prasad, pre-deceased son of Mahabir Prasad, look possession of the plots in dispute left by Smt Bhagwati Kunwar allegedly under the deed of gift dated 6th February, 1946. Smt. Lal Kumari Devi, thereupon, filed a suit in the court o...
Hoshiarey Vs. State of ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1966
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1230
ORDERH.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. This revision is directed against ac order of acquittal recorded by the temporary Civil and Sessions Judge of Meerut on an appeal in a cast: under Section 326, I.P.C.2. According to the prosecution on 14th of September, 1961, at about 10 or 11 a.m. the opposite parties beat Hoshiarey (P.W. 1) and after forcibly dragging him to their gher one of them namely Bedu chopped off his nose. The incident was witnessed by Munsni and Narain (P.Ws. 4 and 5) but they were not allowed to remove the injured person from the gher. When some more villagers arrived on the scene they rescued Hoshiarey who then went to the police station and lodged a report there at 6 p.m. On the basis of his report a case was registered and investigation followed. It was alleged that this crime was committed by the opposite parties on account of enmity with Hoshiarey (P.W. 1) on whose application to the S.D.O. the police had removed the water logging from the village in spite of the resistance f...
Kundan Singh Vs. Suraj Prakash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All94
D.S. Mathur, J. 1. This is an appeal by Kundan Singh, plaintiff, against the order dated 14-2-1963 of the District Judge of Bijnor accepting the office report regarding deficiency in court-fee and directing the appellant to make good the deficiency in court fee. 2. The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit for a sum of Rs. 9,177, but at the same time directed that the decree shall be against the assets of Kishori Lal deceased in the hands of the defendants. The plaintiff challenged only that part of the decree by which the decree could be executed against only such assets of the deceased as had come in the hands of the defendants. His case is that the decree could be executed against all the properties belonging to this joint family. 3. The High Court of Allahabad and the Chief Court of Oudh were amalgamated in 1948 and a new Allahabad High Court was constituted. Consequently, from that date the decisions of both the AllahabadHigh Court and the Oudh Chief Court are binding on the su...
Ronal Lloyed Powell and ors. Vs. Administrator General
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All231
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. Special Appeal No. 135 of 1954 is directed against the judgment of Sri Brij Mohan Lall, J., dated the 4th November 1962, while Special Appeal No 453 of 1955 is directed against the judgment of the same learned Judge dated 21st November 1952. In both the cases the appellants are (1) Ronald Lloyed Powell, (2) Ewen Cameron Caldwell, (3) Dr. Ian Mackenzie Munro. (4) James Cruickshank and (6) Douglas Alexander Ritchie Youngson, while the respondent is the Administrator-General Connected questions have been raised in these appeals. They were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment 2. We would first set out the facts relevant for the decision of the two appeals 3. One Dame Annie Elizabeth Marshall (on marriage Annie Watson) was possessed of vasl properties, part of which are situate in India and part in England and Scotland She resided in London, where she died on 26th December 1951 On 10th October 1951 she had already executed a will ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »