Allahabad Court January 1968 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.
Dr. A.N. Mukerji Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All489; 1969CriLJ1203
Tripathi, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No.471 of 1966 by Dr. Amar Nath Mukerji against his conviction and sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 75,000/- under Section 417 I. P. C. and Criminal Appeal No. 944 of 1966 by Smt. Harbans Kaur the prosecutrix, against his acquittal of charges under Sections 493 and 376 I. P. C., arise out of the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi and they are being disposed of together. 2. On 11th of August 1958. Smt. Harbans Kaur filed her petition of complaint against Dr. Mukerji in the court of a Magistrate First Class at Calcutta praying that he be tried for offences under Sections 493, 496 and 417 of the Indian PenalCode. After undergoing many vicissitudes her complaint resulted in the commitment of Dr. Mukerji to the court of sessions at Calcutta to stand his trial under Section 493 I. P. C. On an application by the prosecutrix the case was, however, transferred from West Bengal to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Va...
Shree Gopal Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Inspector of Factories, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All547; [1968(16)FLR415]
Broome, J.1. This special appeal is directed against an order of A. P. Srivastava, J., dismissing Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 714 of 1962.2. The writ petition was filed by the Shree Gopal Paper Mills Limited, which manufactures paper at Yamuna Nagar in the Punjab. Raw material for this paper manufacture is obtained in the shape of 'bankas' grass from the forests of Nepal. The grass is brought to various rail heads, including Nepalganj Road in the district of Bahraich, where it is compressed into bales with the aid of manually operated bailing presses and is then loaded on railway wagons, to be transported to the paper mills at Yamuna Nagar.3. The Inspector of Factories, U. P., has issued a series of notices to the petitioner, asserting that a 'manufacturing process' is being carried on at the Nepalganj Road Dept., and that consequently this depot constitutes a factory within the meaning of Section 2(m)(ii) of the Factories Act, 1948. The petitioner has accordingly been requir...
Ram Nath Makru Ram Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ679
ORDERH.C.P. Tripathi, J.This revision is directed against the order of the temporary Sessions Judge, Allahabad, refusing to interfere with the order of the Magistrate First Class in which he has held that the applicant was selling adulterated curd and has, therefore, committed an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. According to the prosecution the applicant was found selling curd at his shop on 2.3.1963 at about 8 A.M. Food Inspector Shyamji Srivastava purchased three quarters of a seer of curd on payment of 28 paise as its price from the applicant for sample which was subsequently analysed by the Public Analyst who reported that it was less in milk fat content by 4.61 per cent than the minimum prescribed standard of 6 per cent. The applicant was accordingly prosecuted for selling adulterated milk product.3. At the trial applicant stated that he was selling curd of skimmed milk for which he held a licence and, therefore, he had not committed any off...
Oudh Cocogem and Provision Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1968
Reported in: [1968]69ITR819(All)
V.G. OAK C.J. - The question of law referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Act for the assessment year 1958-59 ?'Messrs. Oudh Cocogem and Provision Stores, Lucknow, is the assessee. It is a firm carrying on business under an instrument of partnership dated October 10, 1940. Three brothers are partners of the firm. The assessment year is 1958-59. The firm was being registered for some time. On finding that there was no change in the constitution during the year under assessment, the Income-tax Officer granted renewal of registration for the relevant assessment year 1958-59. The Commissioner of Income-tax thought that renewal of registration was erroneous. Acting under section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, he cancelled the registration. The assessee appealed. The appeal was dismissed by the Income-tax Appel...
Harinath Vs. Ram Pratap Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All170
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. This second appeal, which is directed against the decree passed by Sri B. K. Sharma, Addl. Civil Judge, Mirzapur, dated 3-7-1958, has come to us on a reference made to a Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court.2. Suit No. 1 of 1954, which has given rise to this second appeal, was filed by the appellant, Harinath, under Section 232 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act) against the respondents, Ram Pratap Singh and Gauri Shanker, in the Court of the Assistant Collector I Class Mirzapur, for recovery of possession of plots nos. 332/2, 455, 466 and 430 situate in village Chand Lewa Kalwan Tappa, district Mirzapur.3. Before the suit giving rise to this appeal was filed, the defendant. Ram Pratap Singh has filed a suit under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act against the plaintiff-appellant, Harinath for his ejectment from the aforesaid four plots as also plot no. 453/2 and for some damages. I...
The Purtabpore Co. Ltd. Vs. Cane Commissioner, Bihar, New Secretariat, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-01-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All105
ORDERSatish Chandra, J.1. The Purtabpore Company Limited, the petitioner, prays for a certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Cane Commissioner, Bihar, on 14th November, 1967, modifying his earlier order dated 30th December, 1966, in relation to the reservation of certain villages in Bihar for the petitioner Company. In my opinion this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. It fails on that preliminary ground.2. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Central Government on 16th July, 1966, passed the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. Clause 6(1) (a) of this Order entitled the Central Government to make an order reserving any area where sugarcane is grown for a factory. Under Clause 11 the Central Government could delegate all or any of the powers conferred upon it on, inter alia, the State Government or any officer or authority of the State Government. The same day, that is 16th July, 1966, the Central Government d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›