Allahabad Court July 1967 Judgments
United Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Ram Chandra Kapoor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1967
Reported in: [1968]38CompCas620(All)
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. This reference by Sri R.C. Chaturvedi, Chief Inspector of Stamps (Collector under the Indian Stamp Act), has been made to this court under Section 61 of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In suit No. 7 of 1961, United Bank oj India v. Ram Chandra Kapur of the Court of the Second Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi, a large number of documents were filed by the United Bank of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the bank). These documents included three deeds which were marked as papers Nos. 52C, 57C and 61C, at the trial. According to the Chief Inspector of Stamps, these three documents were liable to stamp duty as provided by Article 6(2) of Schedule I-B of the Act.2. The case of the bank was that the only duty that was liable to be paid was the one provided by Article 5 of the Act. Suit No. 7 of 1961 was ultimately compromised. However, the Chief Inspector of Stamps has, by means of this reference, requested this court to declare that th...
Tag this Judgment!Balaji Patekar Vs. Official Liquidator and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1967
Reported in: [1968]38CompCas16(All)
J.N. Takru, J.1. This application by Balaji Patckar under Section 446 of the Indian Companies Act seeks the leave of this court to commence his suit against firm Mathura Ram Beni Rain (in liquidation) through the official liquidator.2. It appears tnat Balaji Patekar, claiming himself to be a prior mortgagee, filed Suit No. 4 of 1963 in the court of the civil judge, Varanasi, on 8th October, 1964. The suit was for the enforcement of his mortgage against the mortgagors who were arrayed as defendants Nos, 1 and 2. In this suit, firm Mathura Ram Beni Ram (in liquidation) through the official liquidator was impleaded as defendant No. 3 on the allegation that it was a subsequent mortgagee. As the order of the winding up of firm Mathura Ram Beni Ram had been made on the 20th May, 1964, an objection was taken by the official liquidator in his written statement that the suit could not proceed against the said defendant without the leave of this court. Thereupon the applicant made the aforesaid ...
Tag this Judgment!Paras Nath and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All116; 1969CriLJ350
ORDERG.C. Mathur, J.1. The 27 applicants are members of the Samyukt Socialist Party of India. In connection with the Food Agitation, they entered the court of the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gyanpur, Varanasi, and interrupted the judicial proceedings which were going on there. The learned Magistrate, on September 25, 1964, convicted them for contempt of court and sentenced each one of them to a fine of Rs. 50 and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. As the applicants did not deposit the fines, they were sent to jail and warrants for realisation of the fines were also issued. On October 2, 1964, the applicants were released from jail under an order passed by the State Government under Section 401 Cr. P. C. The relevant portion of this order reads:'The Government remits under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, unexpired period of substantive sentence of imprisonment and sentence in lieu of fine of such prisoners who were ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Banshidhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All184
Uniyal, J.1. These connected appeals raise a common question of law and may be disposed of by a common order.2. The four respondents were prosecuted for contravention of Clause 4 of the Essential Articles (Price Control) Order, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) which requires every dealerto cause to be prominently displayed price-lists of articles for sale at his shop. The Magistrate recorded a conviction but in appeal the Sessions Judge passed an order of acquittal on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove that the Order was in force on 25-3-63, the date on which the shops had been raided by the police. The State Government appealed against the acquittal of the respondents and the appeals were heard by my brothers Khare and Yashoda Nandan, JJ.The learned Judges differed in their opinion on the principal question whether the Order had come into force in Uttar Pradesh on 25-3-63, the date on which the alleged offences were said to have been committed. Khare, J. wa...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Ram Sanehi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ952
ORDERH.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. This appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh is directed against an order of acquittal recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Banda in a case under Sections 224, 379, 225, 148 and 332/149,. I.P.C.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.3. One Alauddin (P. W. 2) lodgel a report at Police Station Bisanda, district Binda, that in his absence his houee bad been burgled and. his movables removed. On this report a case was registered and Sub. Inspector V.P. Rastogi (P. W. 1) took up the investigation. Having armed himself with a loaded revolver and accompanied by three constables he went to village Korari and reached there at 9-30 a. m. He arrested one Chanda and interrogated him. Chanda offered to give some items of the stolen property and handed over two ornaments which bore resemblance with the stolen property as mentioned in the report. Chanda stated to have kept some of the stolen article with Hira Lal alias Hirwa of the village and offered ...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Shankar Shukla Vs. Settlement Officer, Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1967
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ596All
S.D. Khare, J.1. By means of this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to get quashed the order, dated 29 September 1964, by which he was dismissed from service, He farther prays that the orders, dated 2/4 January 1965, pasted by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, and 37 May 1965, passed by the Consolidation Commissioner be also quashed.2. The undisputed facts leading to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that Hari Shankar Shukla, petitioner, was appointed as a temporary clerk in the office of the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 26 April 1946, and had continued to work as such till the date of his dismissal. On 13 September 1964, the petitioner applied for one and a half months' earned leave on the ground that his a mother was ill, and the Assistant Consolidation Officer. under whom be was working, recommended his leave by passing the following order:Forwarded to the Consolidation Officer II Hari Shankar S...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Bhandari and Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1967
Reported in: [1969]23STC324(All)
1. This writ petition by M/s. P. C. Bhandari & Co. (P.) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has been made under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution in the following circumstances :The petitioner is an assessee both under the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act) and deals with tents, tent components, cotton, bags and newar etc. Admittedly, the returns for the quarter ending 31st December, 1964, both under the Act and the Central Act were not filed. Purporting to act under Rule 41(3) of the Rules framed under the Act respondent No. 2, the Sales Tax Officer II, Kanpur, assessed the petitioner to a sum of Rs. 24,000 under the Act and to a sum of Rs. 20,000 under the Central Act for the quarter ending 31st December, 1964. The petitioner filed appeals before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax, Kanpur, which were dismissed. Admittedly it did not file any...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Sen Vs. Vir Sen and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ76
ORDERH.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate First Class, Mainpuri, in a case under Section 325 with Section 34, Penal Code.2. The pro3eoution story lies in a narrow compass. On 18.11.1968 at about 6 p.m. complainant Kunwar Sen was passing on a Rasta (pathway) which ran through the fields of the accused. When he was in the midst of the field the accused suddenly appeared armed with lathis and kulhari and questioned him as to why he was passing through their field. The complainant entreated to be excused and promised not to pass on that passage again. He also requested them to allow him to go out of the field. The accused, however, did not listen to his entreaties and attacked him with their respective weapons. On the alarm raised by the victim a number of villagers reached the scene and witnessed the occurrence. Complainant Kunwar San had received nine injuries one of which had resulted in fracturing his ulna bone of the righ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›