Skip to content

Allahabad Court August 1967 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.

Aug 08 1967

Jauhari Mal and anr. Vs. the State of U.P.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Aug-08-1967

Reported in: AIR1969All241; 1969CriLJ590

ORDERRajeshwari Prasad, J.1. This petition under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., and the Revision Petition No. 2057 of 1965 connected with that case can be disposed of by a common order because the subject-matter of both is the same. The applicants of this petition are Sri Johri Mal and Kumari Arun Bala, minor daughter of Sri Johri Mal. They have prayed that this Court may quash the proceedings pending against the applicants in Criminal Case No. 614 of 1964 under Section 7 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act. The prayer in the revision petition is also to the same effect by asking for the setting aside of the order passed by the revisional Court and to discharge the applicants.2. It appears that the police got information that the petitioners were in possession of some telegraph wire as well as stolen utensils kept in their shops. Search of the shop was made and some telegraph wire was recovered. The police, however, found that crime could not be worked out 'and, therefore, they m...


Aug 08 1967

Ram Jag Mistri S/O Sheo Harakh Mistri and ors. Vs. Director of Consoli ...

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Aug-08-1967

Reported in: AIR1968All419

ORDERS.D. Khare, J. 1.This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the prayer is that the orders of the Director of Consolidation (opposite party No. 1) passed on 16-2-1966 and of the Settlement Officer Consolidation (opposite party No. 2) passed on 31-5-1965 be quashed by the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari.2. This writ petition arises out of a proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as amended upto date and the dispute relates to two occupancy tenancy plots of pre-zamindari abolition era, to wit, plots Nos 199 (10 biswas 9 dhurs) and 200 (10 biswas 10 dhurs) of village Chokia alias Udai-ka-Pura, Taluqa Chauthar, pargana Bhadohi, district Varanasi These two plots originally formed part of the occupancy holding of Sheo Harakh, who had three sons, namely. Ram Rup, Ram Jag (petitioner No. 1) and Ram Sundar. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are the descendants of Ram Rup while Sm. Phulhasi (opposite party No. 4) is the widow o...


Aug 07 1967

Avadh Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Aug-07-1967

Reported in: [1968]21STC295(All)

S.N. Dwivedi, J. 1. The appellant has been taxed on its purchases of groundnuts. A notification issued by the State Government under the Sales Tax Act imposes purchase tax on 'oil-seeds'. The neat point for consideration is : Are groundnuts 'oil-seeds' 2. Counsel for the appellant asked us to answer the question in the negative. In support of his argument he has relied on the dictionary meaning of 'oil-seed' and 'groundnut'. According to the dictionaries an oil-seed is a seed yielding oil, and groundnut is a small farinaceous edible tuber of the wild beans. So it is said that while an oil-seed is a seed, a groundnut is a species of beans. Counsel has also referred us to certain decisions in support of his argument. In The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kajjam Ramachandraiah [1961] 12 S.T.C. 795 the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that coriander, voma and sompu are not oil-seeds. We are not concerned with these things in this case, but certain observations are noteworthy. The Court said:...


Aug 04 1967

Prakash Chandra Vs. Ram Swarup

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Aug-04-1967

Reported in: AIR1969All400

Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. The learned Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh, has made the instant reference to this Court under the provisions of section 113, C. P. C.2. It would contribute to a clear understanding of the matter requiring consideration at our hands if we first reproduce the relevant provisions which are material for the decision of this case.3. This Court has amended Order XXXIX rule 2, C. P. C. by deleting Sub-rules (3) and (4) therefrom and by adding the following rule which has been numbered as 'rule 2A':'2A (1). In the case of disobedience to an injunction issued under rule 1 or rule 2, Sub-rule (2), or of breach of any terms of any such injunction, the Court in which the suit is proceeding may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding six months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release, (2) No attachment under this rule shall re...


Aug 03 1967

Tribeni Singh Vs. Dr. Radha Raman Agarwal

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Aug-03-1967

Reported in: (1968)IILLJ154All

J.N. Takru, J.1. This is a petition by Tribeni Singh praying that the opposite party be punished for committing contempt of Court.2. The allegations on which this petition is based are as follows.3. The petitioner was appointed as assistant agricultural inspector on 27 August 1958. On 12 July 1964 he was served with a suspension order dated 4 July 1962. Later the same day he was served with a chargesheet dated 11 July 1962 in which he was accused of having dishonestly misappropriated huge quantities of gram belonging to the Government. The petitioner submitted his reply on 26 August 1962 denying the charge leveled against him whereupon a departmental enquiry was started against him. During the pendency of that enquiry, on 20 April 1965, a first information report was also lodged by the District Agricultural Officer against the petitioner under Sections 409 and 468, Indian Penal Code. The police investigated the case and on 29 March 1966 submitted a chargesheet under Section 409 Indian ...


Aug 02 1967

Sita and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Aug-02-1967

Reported in: AIR1969All342

M.H. Beg, J.1. This reference to a Full Bench arises out of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking writs of certicrari to quash the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), and the Consolidation Officer, Azamgarh, rejecting the petitioners' objection under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as it stood before its amendment in 1958. The petitioners' objection before the Consolidation authorities was that their names were wrongly omitted from the statement of proposals published under Section 19 of the Act. These statements in C. H. Form 23, prescribed by Rule 46, must contain a number of particulars laid down in Section 19 of the Act. Among the details to be entered in C. H. Form 23, are the name and parentage of each tenure-holder and the class of tenure of each plot in the village which is undergoing consolidation proceedings. The petitioners claimed to be S...


Aug 02 1967

State of U.P. Vs. Jagnoo and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Aug-02-1967

Reported in: AIR1968All333; 1968CriLJ1320

R. Chandra, J. 1. Jagnu and MaheshSingh residents of village Jamsara, Mina of Chandrapur, Mohan of Kantha, Rampal Singhand Ram Smgh of Masurha, Jawahar, Chhotey Lal and Gayari of Virahimpur, Harihar Singh of Jagsura--all within the police circle Sandila --and Sumer of village Sahoria, within the police circle Baghauli, in the district of Hardoi, were tried for the offences under Section 399/402, Indian Penal Code, by the Assistant Sessions Judge Hardoi. The charge against them was that on the night between the 18th and 19th December, 1963 they collected in the grove of Ram Nath in village Bhargahna after having made preparations to commit dacoity at the house of Khurram Chamar. Jagnu, Sumer and Jawahar were further charged under Section 25(a) of the Arms Act. Jagnu, Mohan, Sumer and Harihar Singh were acquitted. The remaining seven, namely, Mahesh Singh Minna, Ram Pal Singh, Ram Singh, Jawahar, Chhotey Lal and Gayari were convicted and awarded five years' rigorous imprisonment each und...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial