Allahabad Court August 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.
The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Nauratan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All255
C.B. Capoor, J.1. The State of Uttar Pradesh preferred a First appeal against an order made by the Civil Judge, Bijnor, in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. During the pendency of the appeal Nauratan Singh the sole respondent died on 15th of December, 1960 and on 5th of March, 1965 an application was made by the State of Uttar Pradesh for bringing the legal representatives of the since deceased respondent on record. This application was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit filed by one Sri J. S. Rajput. Land Acquisition Clerk in the Office of the Collector Bijnor. In the aforesaid affidavit it was stated in the main that the fact of death of the since deceased respondent was conveyed for the first time on 26th of February, 1965 when at the time of the hearing of the first appeal a statement was made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the respondent died on 15th of December, 1960. A co...
Bhagwan Das and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All8; 1968CriLJ1
Tripathi, J.1. The two appellants have been convicted by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, of offences of murder, robbery and causing disappearance of evidence of murder for screening themselves from legal punishment. Appellant Bhagwan Das has been convicted under Sections 302/34,1.P.C. and appellant Bholey Khan under Section 302, sim-plicter and both have been sentenced to death. Both of them have further been convicted under Section 201 I. P. C and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment each Appellant Bhagwan Das has further been convicted under Section 394 I. P C and appellant Bholey Khan under Section 394 read with Section 397 1. P C and the former has been sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment and the latter to seven years' rigorous imprisonment The sentences of imprisonment inflicted on the two appellants under the various counts have been directed to run concurrently The appellants have come up in appeal against their conviction and sen...
Bishan Dayal Vs. Lakshmi NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All370
Verma, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff gains( the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge of Aligarh arises out of a suit for possession over certain propertyspecified at the foot of the plaint and forrecovery of damages and mesne profits past,pendente lite and future.2. The following pedigree will be of help in understanding the facts of the case: Shiv Dayal Singh = Mst. Jagrani Kunwar died on 11.9.1915 | died on 18.10.1948 | | Harihar Dayal Singh = Kamla Devi died on 24-10-1918 | | | Bishan Dayal (plaintiff) born on 24-10-1916 Shiv Dayal Singh executed a wilt on the 10th of September, 1916 bequeathing his self-acquired property to his wife Mat. Jagrani Kunwar. He also gave a house to his son Harihar Dayal Singh and another house to his daughter-in-law Kamla Devi. On the 11th of September, 1915, Shiv Dayal Singh died. The plaintiff, Bishan Dayal Singh, had not been born up to that date. On the 22nd of December, 1915, after his father's death, Harihar Dayal Singh b...
Mewa and ors. Vs. Baldeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All358
B. Dayal, J.1. This civil revision has been referred by a learned single judge of this Bench on account of an apparent conflict between two Division Bench eases of this Court.2. The facts which have given rise to this revision may shortly be stated. The plaintiff filed a suit in the civil court for cancellation of a sale deed on ground of fraud. Heclaimed that he was in possession of the property but in the alternative also prayed that If the opposite party was found in possession a decree for delivery of possession may also be passed. The defendants raised an objection to the maintainability of the suit in the civil court. The trial court, therefore, framed issue No. 4 on the question of jurisdiction and decided that issue holding that the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In this case the question before the learned single judge was:'Whether a suit in which cancellation of a document is in issue along with the relief for possession, lies before the civil court or by virtu...
Hira Vs. Chetu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All452
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of G.C. Mathur J. dated 28th April, 1966, allowing writ petition No. 670 of 1966 filed by respondent No. 1 Chetu. The last election of the Chairman and members of the Town Area Committee. Newari, district Meerut, was held on 29th of November. 1964.2. The dispute in the present case relates to Ward No. 5 which is a double member constituency in which one seat is reserved for the scheduled caste and the other is a general seat. There were four contestants in this Ward, i.e. the appellant Hira and respondent No. 1 Chetu, both of scheduled caste and Davanand and Maujuddin for the general seat.3. Admittedly in all 585 votes were polled. Of these at the time of counting 35 were declared invalid and the result was declared on the basis of the remaining 550 valid votes on 30th November 1964. Annexure 'G' is form No. 15 prepared by the Returning Officer on the 30th of November 1964. In this document the votes received by ...
Mangha Ram Vs. Noor Uddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All33
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal from the decree of the Second Civil Judge, Agra confirming that of the First Additional Munsif Agra, decreeing the, plaintiff respondent's suit for his ejectment and a recovery of Rs. 280 as damages from the appellant. The plaintiff respondent Noor Uddin alleged in his plaint that he is an owner of the house in dispute which is situate at Nala Pipal Mandi. Agra; that he let out the house to the defendant appellant on a rent of Rs. 20 per month; that the appellant falsely reported to the Custodian of Evacuee Property that the plaintiff had migrated to Pakistan with the result that the house was declared Evacuee Property and the custodian took charge of it; that when the plaintiff came to know of this fraud he took proceedings; and ultimately on 30-5-1958 the property was released under Section 16 of the Administration of the Evacuee Property Act; that when the plaintiff asked the defendant to pay rent to him the latter replied that h...
B.R. Sharma Vs. Nanak Chand Shadi Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All487
S.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal from the decree of the Fourth Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur for the recovery of Ra. 2412 on the basis of a promissory note The plaintiff firm Messrs Nanak Chand Shadi Ram alleged that it had business transactions with the defendant appellant B. R. Sharma and that on 13-7-1963 he executed a promissory note for Rs. 2412 in favour of the plaintiff firm. The appellant admitted the execution of the note and the receipt but alleged that these documents were obtained from him on the understanding that they would be shown to the other parties for the purpose of proving that the plaintiff firm had suffered losses He contended that the note was without consideration. He also raised a number of technical pleas--namely, that the plaint had not been properly framed, instituted and signed by the plaintiff firm according to law.2. The trial court disbelieved the defendant's story that he was induced to sign the note and the receipt without recei...
ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR376(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is a statement of the case under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred is :'Whether the expenditure of Rs. 3,750 incurred by the assessee is an allowable item of deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Ac ?'The material facts are these : The relevant year of assessment is 1958-59, the previous year being the year ending on the 2nd October, 1957. The assessee is a company which manufactures sugar. In returning a net loss of Rs. 3,61,915 for the relevant assessment year, it deducted an expenditure for stamps and registration charges for entering into an agreement with the Punjab National Bank for obtaining an overdraft. The Income-tax Officer would appear to have accepted that this was in fact an expenditure incurred for stamps, registration charges, etc., in respect of an overdraf agreement with the bank, but he disallowed it on the ground that it was not an expense on the renewal of an agree...
Bishwanath Singh and anr. Vs. Mohammad HussaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All125
S.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is a judgment-debtor's second appeal from the decree of the District Judge, Ballia confirming that of the Civil Judge, Ballia, dismissing his objections against the execution of a decree. The decree-holder applied for execution by sale of certain mortgaged plots of land. On February 1956 the execution court. (Civil Judge, Ballia) sent the case to the Collector Ballia under Section 68 C.P.C. for the sale of the plots. While the proceedings for sale were pending before the Collector, the decree-holder died. Thereupon the Collector returned the file of the case to the execution Court for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder. The Court ordered substitution. Meanwhile on 2nd December 1956 the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act (Act No. 66 of 1956) was passed omitting sections 68 to 72 of the Code which had conferred jurisdiction on the Collector, but saving his jurisdiction in cases already transferred. Thereupon the present decr...
Haji Mohd. Shafi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All167
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is an application for a re-hearing of the second appeal. The only ground is that counsel's name was not printed in the cause list. But it is conceded that all the other particulars were given in the list -- the names of the parties, the number of the case, and the name of the appellant's counsel. A copy of the extract of the cause list has not been filed. Learned counsel argued that a counsel is entitled as of right to have his name printed in the cause list and if a name is not so printed, he can claim a re-hearing on the ground that he had no notice of the date of hearing. I cannot agree. The cause list is printed by the Bar Association. The office of this Court puts up a list in the evening containing full particulars of every case to be heard on the following day. The applicant hap not alleged in hip affidavit that the list put up by the office omitted the name of Mr. Kakkar. Furthermore, the application is beyond time by 539 days and there is no satisfa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »