Allahabad Court October 1967 Judgments
Nanhey Shah and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All403; 1969CriLJ961
ORDERS.D. Singh, J.1. This revision has been filed by two persons Nanhey Shah and Abdul Hamid against whom an order has been passed under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and proceedings for the recovery of the forfeited amount of the surety bonds are pending in the Court of Sri N.C. Jain, Magistrate. First Class of Moradabad. The Magistrate, under Sub-section (2) of Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by an order dated 25th of November, 1955, directed the issue of warrant of attachment of moyeable property of the sureties. The filed an appeal against that order which was heard by Sri M. Murtaza Husain, Addl. Sessions Judge of Moradabad. He dismissed the appeal but reduced the amount of the penalty from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 500/- in case of each of the two appellants, who have now come in revision to this Court 2. The first error which appears to have crept in the record Is that according to the surety bonds Nanhey Shah and Abdul Hamid were the two sureties, but th...
Tag this Judgment!Khairat HussaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Secy. to Govt. of In ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All422; (1968)IILLJ584All
ORDERSatish Chandra, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to quash an order dated 5th September, 1966, passed by the President of India terminating the petitioner's service.2. The impugned order runs as follows -'In pursuance of Clause (1) of Article 310 of the Constitution, the President is pleased 1o direct that the services of Shri Khairat Hussain. Millwright 'C' T. No. 515/MM, Ordnance Factory, Kanpur, a civilian in Defence Services, shall stand terminated with immediate effect.' For the petitioner this order was challenged on the ground that the pleasure of the President of India under Clause (1) of Article 310 of the Constitution is subject to the rules that have been framed in virtue of Article 309 of the Constitution. I have repelled this submission in Mohammad Akhtar v. Union of India, 1967 All LJ 645.3. In the next place it was submitted that Article 310 has been held in the decision mentioned above to be subject to Article 311. Under Article 311(2) ...
Tag this Judgment!Balak Ram Vaish Vs. Badri Prasad Avasthi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All88
Sahgal, J.1. At the last general election held on the 15th of February, 1967 there were eleven candidates for election to the U. P. Legislative Assembly from the Lucknow Cantonment Constituency No. 104. A declaration was made on the '23rd of February, 1967 of the result of the election and respondent No. 1 was declared duly elected. This petition has been filed by one of the candidates Balak Ram Vaish challenging that election with a prayer that the election of Badri Prasad Awasthi (respondent No. 1) be declared void and that the petitioner be declared elected as a member of the U. P. Legislative Assembly.2. Respondent No. 1 was an adjutant in the Home Guards Organisation and one of the grounds taken in the petition is that being an adjutant under the U. P. Home Guards Adhiniyam, 1963, (hereinafter to be described as the Adhiniyam), he held an office of profit within the meaning of that term under Article 191 of the Constitution and as such was disqualified for being chosen as, and for...
Tag this Judgment!Tandon Sugar Works, Shahjahanpur Vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporati ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All419
ORDERSatish Chandra, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution questions the constitutional validity of the Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1965.2, The petitioner is a partnership concern carrying an the business of manufacture and sale of Khandsari suyar. Under a registered deed of agreement dated 8th September, 1961, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 from the U. P. State Financial Corporation. The loan was repayable in annual instalments of Rs. 10,00.00 beginning with 31st March, 1963. The petitioner paid the first instalment due on 31st March, 1953, but thereafter be defaulted in payment. On 13th June, 1966 the Financial Corporationserved a notice on the petitioner requiring it to make the payment of the due instalments within fifteen days of the serviceof the notice. In spite of the notice the petitioner did not make any payment. The Corporation then issued a recovery certificate under the provisions of the impugned Act, to the Collector, Saharan...
Tag this Judgment!G.S. Chooramani and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All43
ORDERSatish Chandra, J.1. This and the two companion writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of the U. P. Government Estates Thekedari Abolition Act, 1958, and seek to quash the notification dated June 30, 1966, issued by the State Government under Section 3 of that Act, determining the lease held by the petitioners.2. The material and the relevant facts and the questions which arise for determination are common in all the three writ petitions. They can be disposed of by a common judgment. The earliest of them, namely, G. S. Chooramani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (Civil Misc. Writ No. 3043 of 1966) is treated as the leading case.3. The Government of Uttar Pradesh, owned many villages in the area known as Tarai and Bhabar in the district of Naini Tal. The Tarai and Bhabar area was undeveloped, covered with dense forest and infested with wild animals. The State Government was anxious to develop this area by settling tenants thereon and introducing stable cultivation. It offer...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Lal Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All123; 1969CriLJ354
ORDERS.D. Singh, J.1. This revision and revision No. 608 of 1966 are based on similar facts and the questions of law which have been raised in the two revisions are also the same and I, therefore, propose to deal with both the cases in this judgment.2. According to the prosecution case, Parma Lal, who is applicant in this revision, and Prabhu Nath, who is applicant in Criminal Revision No. 608 of 1966, are dealers in foodgrains. A search of their premises was taken at about 10-30 or 11 a. m. on 26th September, 1964, in the presence of Sri R. K. Dubey, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phulpur, by the Station Officer of Phulpur Police Station. Several witnesses were also present at the time of the search. Fifteen bags of wheat, weighing 37 maunds, was recovered from the premises in the possession of Panna Lal, and 37 bags containing 92 maunds of wheat from the possession of Prabhu Nath. The wheat found with Panna Lal would be nearabout 15 quintals and that found with Prabhu Nath 37 quintals.3....
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Vs. Vijaya Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All162
ORDERK.B. Asthana, J.1. This is an application in revision filed by the defendant in a suit pending in the court of the Munsif of Mathura, which was filed by the plaintiff, opposite party Vijaya Kumar, on 27-7-1964 as minor through his mother Sethani Vimla Devi. The suit was for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendants from an accommodation Of which the plaintiff was the landlord. After the written statement had been filed on behalf of the defendants, contesting the suit, the proper issues were framed. On 10th of August, 1965, Sethani Vimla Devi was examined as a witness for the plaintiff on commission. At the end of her cross-examination certain questions were put to her on behalf of the defendants regarding her age and that of her son Vijaya Kumar, the plaintiff. One of the questions was as to what her age was when her son Vijaya Kumar, the plaintiff was born, She first answered that she was 19 years of age but again stated that she was 17 years of age when Vijaya ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishore Vs. Bali Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ70
ORDERJ.N. Takru, J.1. This is a revision by Ram Kishore, and it arises under the following circumstances;2. It appears that the applicant initiated proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P.C. against the opposite parties in respect of the property mentioned in his application. His case was that he wanted to make some new constructions on the said land but as the opposite party threatened him with dire consequence he was pre. vented from making those constructions as a result of which there wits an apprehension of breach of peace. On this application the learned S.D.M. called for a police report, and, on being satisfied that an apprehension of breach of psace in respect of the said property existed, he passed a preliminary order under Section 145, Criminal P.C., and pending decision attached the subject of dispute. By the same order he directed the parties to file their written-state-merits, affidavits, documents etc. on which they relied as regards their respective claims to actual pos...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Saeed and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All428
M.H. Beg, J. 1. This is a writ petition against the orders of the ioint Director,the Deputy Director, and the Settlement Officer in proceedings under Sections 9 and 10 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (after its amendment in 1958). The petitioners are sons of a man called Abdul Hamid, who is alleged to have let the land in dispute to Abdul Rahman, the father of opposite parties 5 to 9, in 1363 F. It appears that in previous proceedings under Section 202 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act it was held that Abdul Hamid was not a disabled person, but an appeal had been filed from that decision. During the pendency of that appeal from the order of a Judicial Officer, dated 12-6-1961, the consolidation operations started so that the same question came up for adjudication before the consolidation authorities.2. The Consolidation Officer had allowed the petitioners' objection under Section 9 of the Act and held them to be sirdars. He held that. Abdul Hamid was a disabled person within ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hassan Ali, Nadir and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All548; 1969CriLJ1335
ORDERSatish Chandra, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It prays that the notification passed by the State Government on 29th April, 1966 be quashed and the respondents be directed to release and restore to the petitioners the copies of the special issue forfeited under- that notification.2. The petitioners are the trustees of Nida-e-Millat Trust which publishes, inter alia, a weekly Urdu Journal called Nida-e-Millat The trust had intended to publish a special issue of this Journal entitled as Muslim University Special on 6th August 1965. It was printed at the Tanvir Press. On the night of 31st July, 1965 the police raided the premises of the Tanvir Press as also the residence of Dr. Asif Qidwai, the editor of this Journal, and the premises of the office of this Journal at 99. Gwyne Road, Lucknow. The Editor, Printer, Publisher, the General Manager and Circulation Manager of this Journal were arrested and a large number of bound as well as unbound copies of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »