Allahabad Court March 1966 Judgments
Shameem Ahmed Vs. Mohan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All346; 1967CriLJ840
1. This criminal appeal No. 2547 of 1963 is connected with criminal misc. application No. 2619 of 1964. The criminal appeal originally came up for hearing before brother M.H. Beg, J. sitting singly who referred certain points to a larger Bench and also the whole case for decision by it. The respondent had also filed an application under Section 561-A, Cri. P. C. on 13-9-1964 praying that the hearing of the appeal should be stayed as a civil suit had been filed by the appellant against the respondent and was pending and same questions of fact and law arose for consideration in the criminal appeal. Accordingly, this application has also been referred to this Bench for decision.2. On 5-4 1963 a complaint had been filed by Shameem Ahmad alleging that the firm Mohammad Ishaq Mohammad Ghulam, a registered firm with its head office at Katni in district Jabalpur had been manufacturing Bins with trade mark No. 303 and that the respondent started manufacturing Biris, which appeared to be limitat...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Soami Satsangh Sabha Vs. Pawan Electric Refrigerating Co. and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All9
Rajeshwari Prasad, J.1. This is an execution first appeal filed by decree-holder.2. The facts of the case are that Sri Radha Soami Satsangh Sabha, Dayal Bagh, Agra, obtained a simple money-decree against the firm known as 'Pawan Electric Refrigerating Company.' There was another defendant in the suit which had resulted into the decree, and that was disclosed to be a limited company known as 'Pawan Refrigerations Ltd.' Both the defendants were sued through Sri B.N. Jain. Decree was, however, obtained against the first defendant alone. The decree was of the nature of a decree for damages on account of breach of contract.3. When the decree-holder put the decree in execution, one Sobha Ram filed objection purporting to be under Order 21, Rules 50 and 58 and Order 30. Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The necessity for Sobha Ram, to file the aforesaid objection arose on account of the fact, that execution of the decree was sought against him and certain immovable properties belonging t...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Piara Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All111
B.D. Gupta, J.1. This is an appeal by the Union of India against an appellate decree declaring that the order of dismissal of the plaintiff-respondent was void and inoperative and the plaintiff-respondent continued to remain in the service of the appellant as before. Rs. 943 as arrears of pay were also awarded by the same decree.2. The plaintiff was skilled fitter working in the Wagon Repairs Shop at Ghaziabad. As a result of some incident the plaintiff was served with charge-sheet dated the 21st of December, 1954. A departmental enquiry took place at which witnesses were examined and the plaintiff was given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and adduce defence. The enquiring officer submitted a report to the effect that the charges had been established. Another notice was thereafter served on the plaintiff which runs as follows: 'Further considering the finding of the Enquiry Committee and your explanation to the charge sheet dated 21-12-54 issued to you, you have been held re...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR72(All)
V. BHARGAVA C.J. - These three references are all interconnected and are, therefore, being dealt with by us in one single judgment. In all the three references, the assessee is Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Reference No. 14 of 1961 is under the Income-tax Act and relates to the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48 while Income-tax Reference No. 568 of 1961 relates to the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. The previous year corresponding to each of these assessment years ended on 30th September, so that the first of the previous years concerned ended on 30th September, 1945, and the last one on 30th September, 1948. The excess profits tax reference relates to the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48. The chargeable accounting period relating to the assessment year 1946-47 is from 1st October, 1944, to 30th September, 1945, and coincides with the previous year for the assessment year 1946-47 in the Income-tax Reference No. 14 of 1961. The chargeable accounting period rele...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All139
Sahgal, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal whose claim for a sum of Rs. 31,931.06 P. has been decreed for a sum of Rs. 20,529.06 P, only and has been dismissed for the rest of the amount. But as a counter-claim has been decreed against him in favour of the defendants for a sum of Rs. 20,529.06 P. that is, the amount for which his suit had been decreed, this appeal has been valued at Rs. 31,931.06 P. that is the whole amount for which the original suit was filed. There is a cross objection also to the extent of Rs. 26,239.54 P. praying for the setting aside of the decree passed against the defendants respondents to the extent of Rs. 20,529.06 p. and for interest on the amount for which the counter-claim was decreed by the trial Court amounting to Rs. 5,710.48 P.2. The plaintiff appellant belonged to the Indian Service of Engineers and was posted in the State of Uttar Pradesh. By an order of the President dated the 17th of April, 1953 he was ordered to be compulsorily retired forthwith. O...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Bux Singh Vs. Badri Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All153; AIR1968All312
ORDER1. These three cases raise a Similar question of law. Because an important question of law is involved in these cases they were referred to a larger Bench. Thus they came up for hearing before us.2. The facts from which Civil Revision No. 86 of 1961 arises are these. A money decree was passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Lucknow. In favour of the opposite party, Badri Prasad against the applicant, Suraj Bux Singh on 29-4-1958. On 1-11-1958 an application was made for transfer of the decree to the Munsif's court under Section 59 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The transfer was ordered on 29-11-1958 but a transfer certificate was actually sent to the Munsif's court on 9-12-1958. On 29-2-1960 the decree-holder made an application to the Munsif for execution of the decree by attachment and sale of immoveable property. The judgment-debtor filed an objection under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground inter alia that the execution was barred by limitation.The learned Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway Vs. Hukum Chand Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All459; [1967(14)FLR129]; (1967)IILLJ70All
Gangeshwar Prasad, J. 1. The following question has been referred to this Division Bench for answer :'Can the propriety of an order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act admitting an application under Section 15(2) after the expiry of the prescribed period of six months be raised in an appeal by an employer against a direction under Section 15(3) of the Act.'2. The question arose in two connectedcivil revisions which came up for hearingbefore Mathur J. The learned Judge did notnote any conflict in decisions relating directlyto the question, but he found a conflict in decisions on a matter having a vital bearing onit, and he thought it necessary that the conflict be resolved. He accordingly directed thatthe papers be laid before the Hon'ble the ChiefJustice for referring the question to a largerBench. That is how the question has beenreferred to this Bench. 3. In his order for reference Mathur, J. mentioned , two cases arising under the PAYment of Wages Act; Prem Narayan Amrit...
Tag this Judgment!Remal Das Vs. Daya Shanker
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All246; 1967CriLJ675
ORDER1. This is an application by Remal Das under Sections 561-A and 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for (1) the quashing of certain proceedings initiated against him by the respondent Daya Shanker and (2) in the alternative for transferring the case from Farrukhabad to Meerut. The applicant states in his affidavit that he is running a tea stall on the station road, Moradabad as well as a cycle-rickshaw stand on the same road Both the shop and the cycle-rickshaw stand are situate outside a cinema known as 'Dilshad Cinema' This cinema also maintains a cycle-rickshaw stand for the use of its patrons According to the applicant the management makes a charge of two annas per cycle whereas he charges one anna only, and thereby he attracts more customers than the management The applicant alleges that the management had made several attempts to persuade him to remove his cycle stand and even threatened him in various ways, but he refused, and this created ill-feeling between the ...
Tag this Judgment!Asst. District Panchayat Officer and ors. Vs. Jai NaraIn Pradhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All334
Bhargava, C.J.1. This special appeal has been filed by the Assistant District Panchayat Officer, Rai Bareli, Assistant Development Officer, Rahi, Rai Bareli, the District Panchayat Officer, Rai Bareli, and the State of Uttar Pradesh against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing a petition filed by respondent Jai Narain under Article 226 of the Constitution and quashing an order of appellant No. 1 dated 21st August 1963, directing the holding of a meeting to consider a no-confidence motion which was presented by five members of the Gram Sabha before appellant No. 2, having been signed by more than half the number of members.When this special appeal came up for hearing, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that the appeal had not been properly filed as it was filed under the signature of the Standing Counsel, who merely had authority to appear and plead on behalf of the appellants but was not entitled to act on their behalf. It appears from...
Tag this Judgment!Kuber Singh and anr. Vs. Drigvijai Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All126
D.S. Mathur, J. 1. This is a Second Appeal by Kuber Singh and another, minor sons of Bhagwan Din alias Bachcha, against the decree and judgment of the Civil and Sessions Judge of Banda, dismissing their appeal, on the ground that the entire mortgage debt of Rs. 1,500/- was due when their father sold 9 Bigha 1 Biswa land to the defendants-mortgagees on May 28, 1941, and as the sale was for payment of genuine antecedent debts, it could not be set aside at the instance of the sons. 2. The material facts of the case are that the plaintiffs' father and uncle had usufructuarily mortgaged 17 Bigha 2 Biswas of the their zamindari property in favour of Pearey Singh, father of Beni Madho Singh, on 29-8-1919 for a sum Rs. 835/-. In 1924, the plaintiffs' father executed another usufructuary mortgage of 3 Bigha 5 Biswas land in favour of the same mortgagee for a sum of Rs. 685/-. On 28-5-1941 the plaintiffs' father sold 9 Bigha 1 Biswa land for Rs. 1,500/- to the mortgagee as a result of which the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »