Allahabad Court December 1967 Judgments
Shiv Singh and ors. Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All14
Gangeshwar Prasad, J.1. These are two special appeals against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court by which he dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellants for quashing an order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal U. P.2. The circumstances which led up to this petition may be briefly stated. In December 1960 Baharaich-Rupaidiha route was advertised by the Regional Transport Authority, Gorakhpur and applications were invited by it for permanent stage carriage permits. The route was a new one and the number of permits to be granted for it had been fixed at four. The appellants and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 applied for permit along with many other persons. The applications received in response to the advertisement came up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority on April 15, 1961. On that date the Regional Transport Authority decided to raise the number of permits to be issued for the route from four to six and granted permits as follows : One pe...
Tag this Judgment!Phool Chand Vs. Lalit Kishore and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All155
S.N. Katju, J. 1. These are two connected appeals which arise out of proceedings in execution of a decree passed in favour of Phool Chand in suit No. 242 of 1953 of the court of Munsif Koil, district Aligarh.2. One Mohan Lal has two sons --Udai Ram and Maya Ram. Udai Ram's son was Ram Prasad who was married to Smt. Sharbati. Their sons are Lalit Kishore and Durga Dutt. Maya Ram's son is Shiam Manohar.3. Phool Chand who is the appellant in the two appeals before me instituted the aforesaid suit No. 242 of 1953 for recovery of Rs. 2535/- together with interest etc. from Durga Dutt. It was alleged that the latter had borrowed money from Phool Chand and hence the claim against Durga Dutt. The aforesaid suit was decreed. The defendant in that suit was described as 'Durga Dutt son of Sri Ram Prasad, caste Maithil Brahman, resident of Pala Sahibabad, Pargana and Tahsil Koil, district Aligarh, Proprietor of R. S. Sharma & Company, Aligarh'. Suit No. 73 of 1959 was brought by Phool Chand agains...
Tag this Judgment!Habib Mian and anr. Vs. Mukhtar Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All296
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the opinion prepared by my brother Pathak, but for reasons stated in this opinion, I am unable to agree with him and nave come to opposite conclusions.2. This second appeal arises out of the proceedings for execution of the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 18 of 1950 of the Court of the Civil Judge, Ghazipur, on 17-3-1952 in terms of the compromise entered into by the parlies on that date. The plaintiff to the suit was Mukhtar Ahmad who is respondent in this second appeal-The defendants were Habib Mian and Ishaq Mian, who are the appellants before us.3. Clause 1 of the compromise deed provides that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 6,500 be passed subject to the condition that the decretal amount shall be payable in four annual instalments. The first instalment would be due on 31st of March 1953 and the remaining instalments...
Tag this Judgment!Kishori Lal Bihani Vs. the Addl. Collector and District Magistrate, Ka ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All159; 1969CriLJ449
ORDERSatish Chandra, J. 1. Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, authorises the Collector to order the confiscation of foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 of that Act if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention ofsuch order. For the same contravention the dealer is liable to be punished under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act to the punishments mentioned therein (Sic) Under Clause (b) of Section 7(1) any property in respect of which the order has been contravened or such part thereof as the Court may deem fit shall be forfeited to the Government. Under the proviso the Court can refrain from directing the forfeiture of the seized property if it is of the opinion that it is unneces-sary to direct it.2. The question is whether the contravention spoken of in section 6-A has the same legal incidence and consequences and has the same nature and character as the contravention made punishable by section 7. I...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanand Sadanand Gairola Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Secy., Mini ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All370
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. Ramanand Gairola, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) is a member of the U. P. Forest Service and holds a gazetted post. He was originally recruited in the Subordinate Forest Service of this State in 1934. In 1946 he was taken in the U. P. Forest Service in the war services quota. It is alleged that at present, he is a confirmed Assistant Conservator of Forests in this State. He has averred that he was selected for the post of Conservator of Forests by a Committee appointed for that purpose and held that post till 3rd of February, 1967.2. In 1951 the All India Services Act was passed by the Central Legislature. In the Act, as passed, there was provision for only two All India Services, that is, the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service. The Act was amended in 1963 and three more All India Services were created, that is, the Indian Service of Engineers, the Indian Forest Service and the Indian Medical and Health Service. ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhajoo Vs. Radhey Shyam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All296; 1968CriLJ1218
G.D. Sahgal, J.1. The respondent to this appeal submitted to this Court a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus in which the appellant was arrayed as one of the opposite parties. The writ petition was allowed. Later on the respondent who was the petitioner in those proceedings moved an application under Section 478 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for proceeding against the appellant praying that in the interests of justice after a preliminary inquiry a complaint under Section 193 read with Section 199, Indian Penal Code he preferred against the appellant. The application came up for hearing before (sic) brother Nigam who had decided the writ petition. After holding an inquiry he recorded a finding that it was expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry be held as to whether an offence under Section 193 read with Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code which is mentioned in Clause (1) (b) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Bhushan Misra Vs. Smt. Jayatri Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All142
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. I have had the advantage of reading the opinion prepared by my brother Pathak. I regret, for reasons given in this opinion, I am unable to agree with the conclusion drawn by him.2. Being doubtful of the correctness of the decision of this Court in Raja Viren-dra Shah Ju Deo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1964 All LJ 868 our brother G. C. Mathur has referred this case to a Full Bench. This is how the matter has come before us.3. This case arises out of an application made by the appellant in second appeal No. 3105 of 1963 under Section 13 of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).4. This Court allowed the second appeal aforesaid on 2nd of January 1967 and set aside the decree passed by the first appellate court. It further remanded the case to the first appellate court with the direction to rehear the appeal.5. The prayer contained on the instant application reads:--'It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to ...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Vs. State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All405; 1969CriLJ963
ORDERS.D. Singh, J.1. This application in revision has arisen out of proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. in the court of sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bharthana in the district of Etawah. The dispute was in respect of some land which originally belonged to one Shri Ram, who died on 13th November, 1959. During his life-time he made a gift of this land in favour of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha under a document which is dated 31st July, 1946 but which was registered on 26th September, 1946. After the death of Shri Ram, differences arose as to the ownership of this land and the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha claimed it on the basis of the gift deed in its favour. The present applicant Govind claimed it as the nearest heir of Shri Ram, being his nephew.2. A case under section 145 is to be decided on the basis of possession of dates relevant for purposes of the inquiry under that section. Both the parties filed affidavits in support of their respective contentions and relied upon documentary evidence as we...
Tag this Judgment!Commissar of Income-tax, U. P. Vs. Sarya Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR109(All)
PATHAK J. - The Income-tax Appellant Tribunal has referred the following question to his court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the loss of Rs. 53,121 due to theft was an allowable ?'The assessee is a private limited company manufacturing and selling sugar. The assessment year is 1959-60, the previous Year being the year ending October 31, 1958.The Tribunal has found that a theft was committed on November 10, 1957, at 3 oclock of the morning in the factory premises of the assessee and a sum of Rs. 75,031 was stolen. A certain amount was recovered from the thieves who included an employee of the, but the sum of Rs. 53,121 remained untraced. It accepted the case of the assessee that large sums of money were necessary at the factory for conducting its day to day business, that on the eve of commencing sugarcane crushing, a large sum in cash had to be kept available at the factory for dispatching funds of different centers to enable the purchase ...
Tag this Judgment!Bimal Alias Bishnu Das Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All591; 1969CriLJ1473
ORDER1. This is an application In revision filed against an order of the Temporary Civil & Sessions Judge, Etah, dated 27th May, 1966, by which he disposed of three revision applications Nos. 16, 17 and 18 of 1966 filed in his Court.2. The applicant Bimal is named as an accused in a complaint filed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by one Pt. Bihari Lal. The complaint is, in fact, against two persons, Sri Raghuraj Singh, a Sub-Inspector of Police and the present applicant, Bimal. On the complaint being presented, the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and then the complainant was directed to produce evidence under Section 202 of the Code. No additional evidence has been examined so far on behalf of the complainant. An application was, however, moved by him on 17th September, 1955, in which it was stated that the accused Bimal was required to be identified by his witnesses and that he might, theref...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »