Allahabad Court May 1968 Judgments
Putti Lal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ531
R. Chandra, J.1. This is an appeal by Putti Lal, resident of Panditpurwa Babaganj, police station Rupaidiha, district Bahraich, against his conviction under Section 304, Part II, of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Bahraich. He has been sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the Assistant Government Advocate for the State.2. The facts of the case in brief are, that Banwari, P.W. 1. the younger brother of Asharfi, deceased, visited the house of prosecution witnesses Pojey and Bindra to engage them as labourers. When Banwari was talking to Pojey, Putti Lal, appellant, also arrived there and enquired from Pojey what wages he had charged from Ram Dularey with whom he had worked. Pojey replied that he got wages in kind, namely, one panseri of wheat. Thereupon, Putti Lal remarked that now it would be difficult even for big persons to pay wages. After about 3 or 4 days, namely, on 6th September, 1965, in the e...
Tag this Judgment!Virendra Swarup Vs. President of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All56
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. Shri Virendra Swarup (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for the issue 'of an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari' to quash the order contained in letter dated 13-5-1968 (annexure 2) and for 'an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to implement or give effect to the aforesaid order'. There is also the prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 not to withhold the amenities and emoluments of the petitioner as Deputy Chairman of the Legislative Council so long as he continues to be the member of the Council. In addition there is the usual prayer for the issue of any other writ or direction as this Court may in the circumstances of the case deem it fit and proper to issue. 2. The respondent No. 1 is the President of India, the respondent No. 2, the Governor of U. P., the respondent No. 3,...
Tag this Judgment!imperial Electric Trading Co., Aligarh Vs. Industrial Tribunal (ii), U ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All242; [1968(17)FLR420]
ORDERR.L. Gulati, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Messrs. Imperial Electric Trading Co. of Aligarh, to challenge an order dated 6th November, 1963, passed by the Industrial Tribunal (II), Allahabad.2. The petitioner is a partnership concern carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of electrical goods in the name and style of Messrs. Imperial Electric Trading Co. (hereinafter called 'the company'). The company has alleged and the same has not been denied that it produces electric table lamps, wall and ceiling fittings, out of brass circules, pipes, electric wires, switches, glass and plastic shades purchased and imported from outside and that it does not carry on any moulding or casting of any metal goods in the factory. The total number of workers employed by the company at the material time was 25, who had formed themselves into a union known as Imperial Electric Trading Company Workers Union, sometimes in 1956; and the said unio...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Manzoor Ahmed and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All467
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. The question referred to us reads: 'Whether the State Government is in law liable to state the reasons for an order refusing to interfere under Section 7-F of the Rent Control and Eviction Act with an order of the Commissioner passed under Section 3(3) of the Act?' 2. The relevant and necessary facts of the case are:-- The petitioners, Haji Manzoor Ahmad and Dr. Maqbool Ahmad, are the landlords of premises No. CK 66/3 situate in Mohalla Benia Bagh, in the city of Varanasi. The respondents Nos. 4 to 7, that is, Sarvasri Sher Andil Khan, Moghal Khan, Abdullah Khan and Mannan Khan, are the tenants in possession of the premises aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as the premises). The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi. 3. The petitioners made an application under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred t...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Nagar Mahapalika, Ka ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All393
Pathak, J.1. This and the connected petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and the connected revision applications under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure raise an important question as to the validity of a demand of general tax and water tax made by the Nagar Mahapalika of the City of Kanpur.2. The facts are substantially similar in the several cases. They may be set out here as they arise in the instant writ petition.3. The petitioner is the owner of house property in Kanpur. In proceedings under the U. P. Municipalities Act 1916, the Municipal Board of Kanpur prepared the quinquennial assessment list for the period 1958-63. The assessment list mentioned the annual value of the petitioner's building and the amount of tax assessed in respect of it. The rate at which the house tax and water tax were each assessed was 61/4 per cent of the annual value of the building.4. The U. P. Municipalities Act, (which we shall for convenience refer to as 'the Act') was replaced by...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Ram Verma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1968All369
Gangeshwar Prasad, J. 1. These connected writ petitions, which raise among other-questions the question of the vires of the U. P. Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act XIII of 1959, came up for hearing before this Full Bench upon a reference made by G. C. Mathur, J.2. The facts leading up to the petitions nay be briefly stated. Certain plots of laud in District Naini Tal are in occupation of the petitioners, the plots in occupation of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3755 being situate in village Nagla Tarai Tahsil Khatima while those in occupation of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 8756 being situate in village Rahpura Tehsi] Kaichba. It is admitted that the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act of 1950 does not apply to the areas in which the plots are situate and they are governed by the U. P. Tenancy Act of 1939. Proceedings for the eviction of the petitioners from the aforesaid plots were started under the provisions of the U. P. Public Land ...
Tag this Judgment!Jawahar Lal Mani Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR78(All)
Pathak, J. 1. There was a Hindu undivided family which carried on business under the name and style, M/s. Nathuram Jawaharlal. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1946-47, 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50 a claim was made under Section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, that the Hindu undivided family had disrupted with effect from May 19, 1945, giving rise to smaller Hindu undivided families. One of such smaller Hindu undivided families is the assessee, M/s. Jawaharlal Maniram. In the assessment proceedings against the parent Hindu undivided family, M/s. Nathuram Jawaharlal, the Income-tax Officer rejectedthe claim under Section 25A and assessed the entire income in the hands of the parent family. The parent family appealed unsuccessfully to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the rejection of the claim under Section 25A and thereafter took the case in second appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order of August 31, 1954, acc...
Tag this Judgment!New Victoria Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur Vs. Raja Ram Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All24
ORDERR.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner, the New Victoria Mills Company Limited, Kanpur employed the first respondent, Raja Ram Gupta, as a cotton godown clerk. On August 12, 1961 it framed charges against Gupta on account of misconduct under Standing Order 23(1) in respect of neglecting his work and causing loss to the company. An enquiry upon those charges was made by an officer of the petitioner, and upon the report submitted by the officer Gupta was dismissed on September 28, 1961.2. On October, 4, 1961, Gupta presented an application before the Labour Court I, Kanpur under Section 6F of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Inter alia, it was pointed out that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Section 6E of the Act. The Labour Court found that an industrial dispute in respect of the suspension and termination of services of Ram Sumer, an operative in the Weaving Department of the concern, was pending adjudication, that the petitioner was bound to comply with Section 6E (ii...
Tag this Judgment!Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited Vs. Domestic Engineering Insta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All31
R. Prasad, J.1. This is a first appeal from order filed under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The appeal has been filed on behalf of the Domestic Engineering Installations Gorakhpur through its partner Sri Gorakh Mohan Das (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff). The respondent to this appeal is Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as defendant).2. The order appealed against is an order purported to have been passed under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. The plaintiff filed an application under Section 20 of the Act alleging inter alia the facts given hereinunder. The defendant invited sealed tenders in August, 1964 for carrying out the work of laying Main Sewerage in the Fertilizer's Township. The plaintiff submitted its tender which was eventually accepted by the defendant on or about 20th October 1964. The work-order dated 19/20th October 1964 was issued to the plaintiff which contained...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad Bux and ors. Vs. Smt. Nathoo W/O Ashiq Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All75
ORDERG.D. Sahgal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing an order dated the 28th of July, 1966, copy contained in annexure 6, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi on an application in revision under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.2. The dispute relates to number of plots of which one Mangali was the sirdar. He died on the 31st of January, 1962 and after him there were rival claims with respect of them between petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and Mohammad Bux, their brother, father of petitioner No. 4 and husband of petitioner No. 5 on the one hand and Smt. Nathoo, opposite party No. 1, on the other. While petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and Mohammad Bux claimed themselves to be the sister's son of Mangali, Opposite party No. 1 claimed herself to be his daughter. As to opposite party No. 1, the case of the petitioners was that she was not a legitimate daughter of the deceased Mangali.3. The fact...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »