Allahabad Court September 1968 Judgments
Ram Khelawan Bhagwati Vs. Sunder Nankau and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All154; 1970CriLJ305
R. Chandra, J.1. This reference arises out of the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ram Khelawan the petitioner, applied to the Magistrate for summoning the Lekhpal for filing an affidavit in that case. The Magistrate disallowed the prayer on the ground that under the existing law, there was no provision for summoning a witness for giving evidence in a case under Section 145 of the Cri. P. C. In the revision filed against that order, the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, did not agree with that view. So, he made a reference to the High Court recommending that the order of the Magistrate be quashed, and he be directed to decide the application of Ram Khelawan for summoning the Lekhpal on the merits. The reference came up for hearing before Brother Misra. J. He thought that the view expressed by Desai, J. (as he then was), in the case of Bhagwat Singh v. State, AIR 1959 All 763, that the Magistrate can summon only those persons for examination whose affidavits have ...
Tag this Judgment!Jai NaraIn Har NaraIn and anr. Vs. L. Bulaqi Das S/O. L. Munna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All504
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. It would contribute to a clear understanding of the question referred to us for our opinion If the following facts are given:--- Suit No. 6 of 1956 of the Court of the Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, was filed by Lala Bulaki pass (Plaintiff) against (1) M/s. Jai Narain Har Narain, (2) Jai Narain and (3) Har Narain (defendants). In this suit Lala Bulaki Dass, plaintiff, claimed Rs. 22,000/- from the defendants by way of refund of advance money given by him to the defendants along with interest and damages on the allegation that the agreement dated 1-4-1953 between the parties had been breached by the defendants. 2. Suit No. 599 of 1956 of the Munsifs court, Gorakhpur, was filed by Firm Jai Narain Har Narain against (1) Firm Sohan Pal Munna Lal and (2) L. Bulaki Dass. The plaintiff in this case (Firm Jai Narain Har Narain) claimed a sum of Rs. 5,000 from the defendants, Firm Sohan Pal Munna Lal and Bulaki Dass on the allegation that the agreement aforesaid had been breached ...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Raghuraj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1968
Reported in: 1970CriLJ78
Yashoda Nandan, J.1. This case has come up before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court because in his opinion there is a conflict between the decisions of two learned single Judges of this Court on the question of law arising for consideration.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this referene are that Raghuraj Singh was wanted in connection with a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in Mohalla Akbarabad, Casba and Police Station Sehawan, District Budaun. The offence is alleged to have been committed on the 10th May, 1966. In August, 1966, Raghuraj Singh was arrested in district Bulandshahr and was produced before the Additional District Magistrate (J), Bulandshahr, under Section 167(1), Criminal P. O. It appears that a report was made that the prosecution intended to put up Raghuraj Singh for identification at a test identification parade. The learned Additional District Magistrate (J), Bulandshahr passed an order under Section 167(2), Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Awalamb and ors. Vs. Jata Shankar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All526
S.D. Khare, J.1. These two appeals and the civil revision have been referred to this Bench because a common question of law is involved in them. The extent of the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue courts in certain matters, which are otherwise civil in nature, has been determined in several cases decided by this Court and it was noticed in Second Appeal No. 710 of 1967 that there is an apparent conflict in two Division Bench decisions of this Court, both pronounced in the year 1965.2. No question was formulated for the opinion of the Full Bench in any of the two second appeals or the connected civil revision, and all of them have got to be finally disposed of by this Bench. Each of these appeals and the civil revision shall, therefore, be considered separately after the common question of jurisdiction has been discussed.3. The suit which gave rise to Second Appeal No. 282 of 1967 was for the cancellation of three sale deeds executed by defendant no. 7, one member of the family only (wh...
Tag this Judgment!Ghamandi and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1968
Reported in: 1970CriLJ386
T.P. Mukerjee, J.1. (1-5) (After statins the facts, His Lordship proceeded.)2. A point of law has now been raised by the learned Counsel for the defence that out of the six dacoits, two having been acquitted, it was not possible to sustain the conviction of the remaining four on a charge under Section 395, I. P. C. which contemplates participation of at least five persons in the offence. In support of his contention he relied on two decisions. The first is a decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of In re, K. Appalaswami AIR 1957 Andh Pra 954 and the case of Devi v. State . Both these decisions were by single judges of the respective Courts. In the first case seven persons who were, apparently, known to the complainant had been named in the first information report as having cpmmitted a dacoity by forcibly harvesting and removing his crop. The Sessions Judge found that there was no case against three of the accused persons and he acquitted them for want of proof. He, ...
Tag this Judgment!Upper India Sugar Exchange Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR331(All)
T.P. Mukerjee, J.1. The question referred to this court under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), relates to the taxability of the sum of Rs. 4,042 as the income of the applicant for the assessment year 1959-60, The facts of the case agreed to by both the parties as set out in the statement of the case submitted by the Appellate Tribunal are as follows. 2. The applicant, M/s. Upper India Sugar Exchange Ltd., Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the assessee or the Exchange), is a public limited company. It manages the business of forward transactions of its constituent members in sugar, etc. Such transactions are carried on through the agency of approved brokers who are registered with the Exchange. The members are not permitted to deal directly with one another in such transactions. For the services rendered the assessee charges from the members commission at prescribed rates. The assessee also realises from its constituents brokerage ' for an...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Prasad Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Medical and Health Services
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1968
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ223All
B.N. Lokur, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Medical and Health Services (Employees' State Insurance), Uttar Pradesh, terminating his services as untrained temporary pharmacist be quashed.2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed in 1952 as an attendant under the Deputy Director of Medical and Health Services under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme and worked as a substitute compounder for short periods twice during 1959. He was appointed a compounder on 9 April 1964. Later, he was allowed to take a Refresher Course of Compounders from 1 August 1965 to 31 January 1966. After successfully completing the refresher course, he was entitled to the trained compounders' grade but, in spite of representations, he was not appointed to that grade. In February 1968, the petitioner joined a registered trade union, named Pharmacists' Association, Kanpur, and, it is alleged, the Deputy Directo...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Kamla Ram Nautiyal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1968
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1283
ORDERS.N. Katju, J.1. Notices were issued to Kamla Ram Advocate, Vidya Sagar Nautiyal, Maya Ram Ratauri, Udel, a communist M.L.A. of Banaras, Yogendra Sharma, editor, Janyug, New Delhi, Kamesh Sinha, Publisher, Janyug, New Delhi and Radha Krishna Kukreti Editor.'Naya Zamana, Dehradun to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of Court. 2. Two criminal cases, Nos. 241 of 1967 and 246 of 1967, against V.K. Agarwal, clerk of the Assistant Engineer, P. W. D.. Uttar, Kashi, under Section 8(7) of the Essential Commodities Act and under Section 465, Penal Code were registered on 21-9-67 and 25.9.67. The charge sheets were issued by the Investigating Officer on 10-10-67, in both the eases, and they have been pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bhatwari, district Uttar Kashi since 25.10-67 and 6.11.67 respectively. The aforesaid cases had been registered on the reports made by Kamla Ram Nautiyal, Secretary of the Communist Party of Uttar Kashi.It was alleged by...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All604
ORDERG.D. Sahgal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, namely, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Collector of Lucknow not to take acquisition proceedings regarding the land mentioned in the notifications (copies contained in annexures 1 and 2) and not to disturb the possession of the petitioner over that land.2. A notification was issued on the 21st of November, 1966 by respondent No. 2, the Collector of Lucknow under Subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act 1 of 1894) under which the respondents proposed to acquire an approximate area of 22 acres, viz. 9500 square feet from plot No. 163, situate in Hazratganj, Lucknow the plan as to which could be inspected at the office of the Collector of Lucknow. A notification was thereafter issued on the 8th of May, 1967 under Section 6 of the Act along with a notification under Subsection (1-A) of Section 17 of the Act as amended in its...
Tag this Judgment!The Burhwal Sugar Mills Company Ltd. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC241(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This and the connected writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order as they are by the same petitioner and raise the same question arising out of identical set of facts.2. The petitioner is a limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar. The common question involved in this group of writ petitions is as to whether the value of gunny bags in which sugar is packed can be subjected to sales tax when the turnover of sugar itself is exempt.3. It is the case of the petitioner and the same has not been denied that the petitioner-company, like all other manufacturers of sugar, utilises gunny bags as packing material. The sugar is always packed in gunny bags before it is stored or is offered for sale. At no time sugar is kept loose as otherwise the quality, grade and colour of sugar deteriorate. The petitioner further states that no extra or separate charge is made from the purchasers on account of the supply of sugar bags. It is further sta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »