Allahabad Court May 1968 Judgments
Ahibaran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All399
ORDERR.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner is a tenure-holder in a number of villages of Tehsil Kannauj, in the district of Farrukhabad. In proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, for the determination of surplus land a notice under section 10 was served upon the petitioner enclosing a statement which inter alia specified the plots proposed to be declared as surplus land. The family of the petitioner was shown as consisting of two persons, only, namely the petitioner and his wife. The petitioner filed an objection claiming that his family consisted of sixteen members living as members of a joint Hindu family. They included himself, his wife, four sons, four daughters-in-law, three sons* sons and three unmarried sons' daughters. The petitioner admitted that however, a number of plots consisted of ancestral tenancy land which upon a family settlement had been given to the petitioner's sorts. The names of the three sons were entered separately over the lan...
Tag this Judgment!State of Uttar Pradesh and anr. Vs. Dr. Prem Behari Lal Saxena
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All449; (1969)ILLJ247All
Oak, C.J.1. These two appeals raise a common question whether Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is applicable where services of a permanent Government servant are dispensed with on the abolition of the permanent post held by him.2. In Special Appeal No. 809 of 1964 the facts are these. Dr. Prem Behari Lal Saxena was appointed Anaesthetist in a Government hospital at Kanpur. He was appointed to this post by the State Government by its order dated 31-3-1951. He was confirmed in this post with effect from 10-9-1955. On 3-11-1961 the State Government passed an order that, as the Governor has been pleased to order the abolition of the permanent ex-cadre post of the Anaesthetist at the Government hospital at Kanpur, services of Dr. P. B. L. Saxena, the incumbent of the post, were being dispensed with. Dr. Prem Behari Lal filed in this Court a writ petition challenging the order of discharge dated 3-11-1961 on various grounds. One of the grounds was that he was removed from service ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad and anr. Vs. Girja Shankar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1968All425
G.S. Lal, J.1. This second appeal has arisen out of a suit for cancellation of a sale deed dated 21-6-1958 executed by appellant No. 2 Smt. Bhagwan Dei in favour of appellant No. 1 Jagdish Prasad for a sum of Rs. 1200 in respect of a shop situated in the city of Hardoi. The suit was instituted by the present respondent Girja Shankar on the ground that under a will of the original owner Ram Prasad of the shop in suit, Smt. Bhagwan Dei was given only the right of possession for her life whereafter the shop was to pass on to him (Girja Shankar) and Smt. Bhagwan Dei had no transferable interest in the shop. The sale deed was, therefore, said to be invalid and unauthorised.2. The following short pedigree is undisputed and will be found of use :-- Gaya Din | ------------------------------------------------------ | | Ram Prasad Raghubar Dayal (died issueless) | ------------------------------------------ | | Uma Dutt Bhagwan Def (died issueless) Appellant NO. 2Uma Dutt had two wives and one ot...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow Vs. Mohammad Usman Ali, Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All365
Lakshmi Prasad, J. 1. Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow Region, Lucknow prefers this appeal from the decision of a learned Single Judge allowing the respondent's petition under; Article 226 of the Constitution.2. On 9th August, 1962 the respondent held a stage carriage permit on Barabanki-Kotwa route. It was valid up to 8th August, 1965. The said route was notified on 1st December, 1962 stating that the U. P. Government Road-ways would start plying buses with effect from 16th December, 1962, The respondent applied on 13th December, 1962 for an alternative route as a displaced operator. A true copy of that application is annexure 1 to the petition. In this application he indicated that he may be given an alternative permit on one of the three routes, namely Lucknow-Hardoi, Barabanki-Faizabad and Sitapur-Hardoi. On 15th December, 1962 Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow Region, Lucknow raised strength on Hardoi-Sitapur route from 6 to 14 and invited applications to fill the vacanci...
Tag this Judgment!Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar and anr. Vs. Jugal Kishore Ram Swarup and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All40
Broome, J.1. The following question has been referred to this Bench for decision:'Whether Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14, U. P. Town Areas Act, 1914 is valid.'2. Section 14 of the said Act enumerates the various taxes that may be imposed by a Town Area Committee; and Clause (f) of this Section relates specifically to the levy of circumstances and property tax. This provision was introduced in the U. P. Town Areas Act by an amending Act (U. P. Act XXIII of 1950), which came into force in July 1950. Such a tax was not being levied by Town Areas before the commencement of the Constitution and consequently cannot be saved by Article 277. The question therefore arises whether the amendment conferring the power on Town Area Committees to levy this tax was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant in this connection is twofold. Firstly, it is contended that circumstances and property tax is essentially a...
Tag this Judgment!State of Uttar Pradesh and anr. Vs. Raja Ram Pratap Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1968All400
Jagdish Sahai J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of N. U. Beg, J. dated 6th January 1966. The respondent, Raja Ram Pratap Singh, filed writ petition No. 320 of 1965, which was allowed by Beg, J. by means of the judgment mentioned above. By means of the writ petition proceedings for realisation of arrears of tax were sought to be quashed.2. The father of the petitioner-respondent, Raja Ram Pratap Singh, was the proprietor of the Katiyari Estate. Admittedly he was assessed to agricultural income tax as also to large land holdings tax. A sum of Rs. 91,005.69 P. was being recovered from him as arrears of agricultural income tax in respect of the year 1359 F., a sum of Rs. 8,140.90 P. (inclusive of a sum of Rs. 1,615.65 by way of penalty) for the year 1361 F., a sum of Rs. 5,036.63 P. (inclusive of a sum of Rs. 900.00 by way of penalty) for the year 1363 F., a sum of Rs. 7630.55 P. for the year 1365 F., and a sum of Rs. 11,323,56 (inclusive of a sum of Rs. 900,00 by w...
Tag this Judgment!Naurang Singh Chuni Singh Vs. Smt. Sapla Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1968All412; 1968CriLJ1636
R. Chandra, J.1. This reference arises out of the proceedings under Section 488 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure.2. On 26th March, 1965, Smt. Sapla Devi made an application under Section 488, Cr. P. C., for grant of maintenance on the grounds, that she was married to Naurang Singh petitioner about two years ago and after one year of the marriage the relations between them became strained and Naurang Singh also married a second wife, namely Smt. Kalpa Devi, that about 8 months ago he (Naurang Singh), dispossessed her of the ornaments and clothes and turned her out of the house, and thereafter she started to live with her father. It was said that during this period, Naurang Singh completely neglected to maintain her, so she claimed maintenance at Rs 30 per mensem from her husband, namely Naurang Singh.3. Naurang Singh petitioner resisted the claim for maintenance on the grounds that Smt Sapla Devi was not his legally wedded wife and he was actually married to Kalpa Devi about fiftee...
Tag this Judgment!Carew and Co., Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal Ii and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ707All
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. By means of this petition an interlocutory order dated 4 April 1968 passed by the presiding officer of an industrial tribunal has been challenged. The industrial tribunal is seized of a reference made to it for adjudication by the State Government. In the proceedings before it, union 2, which is a party to the proceedings, objected to the acceptance of the accounts furnished by the company. By means of the impugned order the Carew and Co., had been directed to produce the records mentioned in the order, before the industrial tribunal.2. Sri Bishun Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has made the following two submissions before us:(1) That the order violates the provisions of Section 23 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.).(2) That the production of records would cause great inconvenience to the Carew and Co., which has its business spread at several places in India and Pakishan.3. Learned Counsel's contention is that Se...
Tag this Judgment!Janta Cycle and Motor Mart, Kanpur Vs. Asst. Commissioner (J), Iii Sal ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All200; [1968]22STC94(All)
Oak, C.J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Messrs. Janta Cycle and Motor Mart, Kanpur, are the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Kanpur, is respondent No. 1.2. The petitioner is a dealer at Kanpur dealing in cycles and cycle parts. On 29-8-1966 the Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur, passed an assessment order for the year 1964-65. The petitioner's net turnover was fixed at Rs. 2,60,000. A sum of Rs. 12,940 was assessed as sales tax payable by the dealer. The petitioner filed on 19-9-1966 an appeal against the assessment order, dated 29-8-1966. According to the memorandum of appeal, the amount of sales tax admitted by the appellant was Rs. 1,612.91. By this time the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,610.91 as sales tax. The amount so deposited fell short of the amount of admitted tax by Rs. 2. The appellant deposited an additional sum of Rs. 5 in Janua...
Tag this Judgment!Rampal Singh Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police (P.A.C.) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1968
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ1All
Satish Chandra, J.1. The petitioner challenges the validity of an order passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police on 25 July 1967 reverting him. The petitioner after completing the training course was posted as sub-inspector of police in 1955. On 20 July 1960, he was promoted to officiate on the post of reserve inspector and was posted as Company Commander at P.A.C., Agra. On certain charges of misconduct, the petitioner was reverted to his substantive post of sub-inspector for a period of one year from 1 March 1966. On the expiry of the year, the petitioner was again promoted to officiate as reserve inspector with effect from 1 March 1967. Then on 25 July 1967, the impugned order was passed reverting him to his substantive rank. The order states:Officiating Company Commander Ram-pal Singh of XXVIII Bn., P.A.C., Chunar (Mirzapur), is hereby reverted to his substantive rank of reserve sub-inspector on grounds of general unsuitability with effect from 1 August 1967 and is transfer...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »