Allahabad Court December 1969 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.
Queen-empress Vs. Ram Saran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All306
Straight, J.1. In this case four persons - Ram Saran, Piru, Mohib Ali, and Ram Ghulam--have been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur of the murder of a boy named Gur Prasad, son of Damri, Bania, on the 16th June 1885. All the convicts have appealed, and the case has also come in the ordinary course before us for confirmation of the sentences of death which have been passed on the appellants. The case is one which has caused my brother Tyrrell and myself great anxiety, and has occupied much of our time, and looking to the care with which the Judge tried it, and to the circumstance that the assessors concurred with him in his verdict, we have hesitated long before arriving at the conclusion, as regards some of the appellants, that the convictions cannot be sustained.2. The circumstances of the case are shortly these. On Tuesday, the 16th June, the deceased boy, Gur Prasad, was staying with his sister at Sikandarpur, and on that day he left her house, and neither by her eyes nor b...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited (Now Known as Orie ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: [1986]63STC246(All)
Anshuman Singh, J. 1. These five revisions at the instance of the assessee are directed against the judgment dated 13th February, 1985, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Kanpur, relating to assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 arising out of original assessment as well as proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Since all the five revisions arise out of a common order, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The applicant-assessee is an insurance company and, according to it, provides services of general insurance by covering risk of loss against accidents, fire, theft, etc. The business of the applicant is to provide insurance to the customers and indemnify them against loss, damage or theft of the insured property in terms of the insured contracts. It is also doing the workmen compensation insurance, third party insurance, sickness insurance, robbery, theft, etc. Some time in motor claims the assessee gets the sa...
Smt. Pratima Chauhan and Another Vs. Regional Deputy Director of Educt ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1234; (1999)2UPLBEC1621
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioners were selected for appointment against short-term vacancies after publication of an advertisement in only one newspaper. The selection was sought to be approved by the Manager through his letter dated 20.11.1995 which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. This was received by the Deputy Director of Education. Region II. Agra on 16.2.1996. But no approval was accorded to the proposed selection for appointment. On 26.2.1996 the Committee of Management issued appointment letters to the petitioners which is Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition. Pursuant to such appointment letters, the petitioners Joined on 27.2.1996. By letter dated28.2.1996, the Deputy Director ofEducation informed the Manager of the institution that the papers of appointment sent by the Management through letter dated 16.2.1996 are irregular and against the Government Orders and that the appointments were made illegally. The petitioners had moved a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Peti...
Arvind Singh S/O Late Haridwar Singh, Proprietor of Puja Tent House Vs ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2440
Amitava Lal, J.1. According to the writ petitioner, he is a licensee in respect of plot of land under the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. Such license was time to time extended. Last of such extension will be ending on 31st December, 2007. The land was uneven and covered with bushes and trees etc. It was totally unfit for use. Since the request of the petitioner to provide certain basic facilities, amenities/regarding water supply, electricity etc., was not entertained, the same was developed by the petitioner himself at his cost and expenses. The petitioner normally booking such place from third parties for providing them to use the place for ceremonial functions. Several bookings between the periods from 22nd November 2004 and 27th June, 2005 are already existing. Since the petitioner occupied the uneven land which was subsequently converted to a habitable property for making ceremonial programmes etc. with all facilities and amenities, the petitioner accrued right of land und...
Smt. Shashi Srivastava Vs. Deputy Director, Education (Madhyamik), Xiv ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC52
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.2. The petitioner was appointed in 1995 after the vacancy was advertised in a newspaper called 'Anant Varta'. In my opinion this newspaper is not a well newspaper having wide circulation. Before making a valid appointment the vacancy must be advertised in two well known news papers having wide circulation e.g. Dainik Jagran 'Aaj' whose publications are also from Varanasi and its Editions are widely circulated in district Ballia. It s surprising that the vacancy was not advertised in such news papers. In view of decision inS. K. Dixit v. D. I. O. S. Agra, 1995 (26) ALR 601 this writ petition is dismissed. However, I direct that the yacancy shall be advertised again in two well known news papers having wide circulation end the petitioner may apply against the vacancy again.2. I further issue a direction to the Secretary, Education, Government of U. P. Lucknow to prepare a list of news papers having wide circulation in Uttar Pradesh al...
Meghai Vs. Sheobhik and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1896)ILR18All353
Banerji, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Allahabad under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A complaint was brought against three persons by one Meghai of the wrongful seizure of cattle under Section 20 of Act No. I of 1871. The complaint was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious, arid the Magistrate who tried the case awarded compensation to each of the accused persons from the complainant under Section 560 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section authorises a Magistrate to award compensation to a person accused of an offence. A wrongful seizure of cattle is not made punishable under any law, and is not therefore an offence within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That being so, a complaint of the illegal seizure of cattle was not a complaint of an offence, and Section 560 was not applicable. The award of compensation by the Deputy Magistrate was consequently illegal. This view is supported by the rulings of the Madras High Court i...
Gulab Chand Vs. Bari Bahu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All454
Oldfield, J.1. The plaintiff holds a mortgage with conditional sale from Gurdayal of his one-third share in mauza Dharwan and has brought this suit for foreclosure. It appears that Gurdayal and the shareholders of the other two-thirds of the mauza fell into arrears of revenue, and the Government annulled; he settlement under Section 158, Revenue Act, and under Section 159 farmed the mauza to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also appears to have fallen into arrears of revenue, and the Collector, also acting under Section 159, took the mauza under his management. Eventually, as the arrears could not be cleared off by kham management, the one-third share of Gurdayal was, under the provisions of Sections 165 and 43, Revenue Act, offered to defendant Bari Bahu, wife of Gurdayal, as representing him. He, it appears, had become a bairagi. She satisfied the arrears due, Rs. 908-6-11, and afresh settlement was made with her. The claim of the plaintiff to foreclose has been resisted by her on the gr...
Narayan Das and ors. Vs. Man Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All480
Pearson, J.1. The question whether the bond on which the claim in the present suit is founded was collusive or not was distinctly raised by the pleadings in the suit formerly brought by Man Singh against Tula Ram (now represented by the present plaintiff's), was made an issue for trial, and was determined in that suit adversely to Tula Ram. The lower Appellate Court is of opinion that the finding on that issue in that suit does not preclude a re-adjudication of it in the present suit for two reasons: first, because the determination of the issue in that suit was not required for its disposal; and, secondly, because the finding by which it was determined was imperfect. We are unable to concur in the opinion. It is true that the Munsif might have disposed of the former suit without adjudicating on that issue on the basis of his findings on the other issues tried by him; but it is also true that he was perfectly justified in laying down that particular issue for trial, as it arose out of ...
Hamid-ud-dIn Vs. Kedar Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All386
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application for a decree under Section 90 of Act No. IV of 1882. The judgment-debtor is the appellant before us, and the grounds taken by him are two: first till the application was barred by limitation, and secondly, that the matter is res judicata in consequence of the decree passed in the original suit The suit was one for sale upon a mortgage of the 16th of September 1889. The amount secured by the mortgage was payable on demand and the mortgage-deed was a registered instrument. The suit for sale was brought on the 29th of January 1891. The plaintiff asked for a decree not only for sale of the mortgaged property, but also against the person and the other property of the mortgagor. The Court of First Instance refused to make a decree against the person of the mortgagor and against the other property, and limited its decree to one for sale of the mortgaged property. That decree was affirmed by the Court of First Appeal, which hel...
Gumani Vs. Ram Padarath Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All838
Straight, J.1. Section 43 of Act X of 1877, as amended by Act XII of 1879, is more apposite to the present case than s. 13. An obligation and a collateral security for its performance constitute the cause of action, and a plaintiff cannot be permitted to sue first in respect of the money-debt due on a bond hypothecating property, and afterwards, in respect of the same cause of action, for enforcement of lien. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 163
- 164
- 165
- Next ›
- Last »