Allahabad Court January 1971 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.
Ram Sukh and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All352
ORDERH.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. The dispute between the parties related to four plots, namely 2780, 2781, 2820 and 2817/1. These plots were recorded in favour of Hira Lal and others who are not parties to the petition. Opposite party Brij Behari filed objections claiming himself to be Sirdar of theplots. Two mortgage-deeds executed by Ram Pher and Ram Sumer in favour of the father of Brij Behari were brought on the record before the Consolidation Officer. It may be noticed here that Ram Sumer was the father of the two minor petitioners and Ram Pher was the father of opposite party No. 4. Kesho Ram. It appears from the order of the Consolidation Officer that before him the minor petitioners were represented by their mother Smt. Jai Kali who had accepted the factum of mortgage of the plots in favour of Brij Behari's father and had expressed no concern with them. As regards Kesho Ram opposite party No. 4 it is not clear from the order of the Consolidation Officer as to what case had been taken...
D.N.V. Chellam and ors. Vs. the Railway Board and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All382
ORDERK.B. Srivastava, J.1. The petitioners D. N. V, Chellam, K. N. Ganesh Kumar and K. K. Maniar in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order (Annexure 3), dated September 17, 1969, passed by the Railway Board, opposite party No. 1 and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Railway Board, Director General, Research, Designs and Standards Organization (hereinafter referred to as the RDSO), opposite party No. 2, and the Assistant Accounts Officer, R. D. S. O., opposite party No. 3. not to withdraw the special pay of Rupees 150/- admissible to them.2. The facts giving rise to this petition may now be narrated. Petitioner No. 1 (D. N. V. Chellam) was initially appointed as Senior Draughtsman, a class III-post in the Mechanical Research Branch of the erstwhile Central Standards Office (now the RDSO) on 25-8-1949 and was eventually promoted as a Sectional Officer on January 19, 1949 and confirmed as such ...
Ashwani Kumar Maksudan Lal and ors. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR854(All)
Pathak, J.1. Messrs. Ashwani Kumar Maksudan Lal, the first petitioner, is a partnership firm. It was registered under Section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1964-65. When filing its return for the assessment year 1965-66, the petitioner-firm submitted a declaration, purporting to be in Form No. XII, as required by Rule 24 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the purpose of continuing the benefit of registration for that year also. It appears that the declaration form should have been signed, among others, by Arun Kumar, but it was signed instead by Ashok Kumar. On August 31, 1967, the Income-tax Officer made an order holding that because, of this error the declaration was not in the formprescribed by the rules and directing :2. ' The registration oi the firm granted in the assessment year 1964-65 is not allowed to be continued for the assessment year 1965-66 and the firm is treated as unregistered for the purpose of tax.' The petitioner-firm filed an appeal agai...
Tajpal Vs. Mangoo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ912
ORDERO.P. Trivedi, J.1. This criminal reference has been made by the Sessions Judge, Hardoi. It appears that an application Under Section 133 of the Cri. miminal P.C., was moved by Tejpal before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi with the allegation thai; the opposite parties had constructed a wall unlawfully en a public way and the same was causing nuisance. The Magistrate thereupon issued a conditional show-cause notice to the opposite parties under Sub-section (l) of Section 133 of the Criminal P.C. The opposite parties appeared before the Magis. tiate and denied that the land in dispute was a public way. The Magittrate then proceeded with an enquiry Under Section 139A of the Criminal P.C. and on the basis of the evidenoe pro. duced by the opposite parties in support of the denial came to the conclusion that the disputed land was not a public way and drop, ped the proceedings. Against that order a revision was filed by Tejpal which was heard by the Sessions Judge, Hardoi. The Ses...
Rati Bhan Singh and anr. Vs. Ramchandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All386
ORDERH.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. Parties filed an objection under Section 9 (1) of the Act. It was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer as barred by time. On appeal, the Settlement Officer agreed with the finding of the Consolidation Officer. Petitioners' revision against the order of the Settlement Officer was also dismissed by the Deputy Director on 20-2-1968; hence this petition. The case is governed by the Act as it stood in 1958. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as notice envisaged under Section 9 of the Act had not been admittedly served on the petitioners, there was no question of limitation arising in the case and the Consolidation Authorities have erred in rejecting his objection on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel contends that Section 9, as it stood in 1958, provided that notice was to be sent 'to persons interested calling upon them to file objections, if any, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice. ............' and as no notice was ...
Ram Manorath and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1584
O.P. Trivedi, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Ram Manorath, Sheo Kumar Singh and Bhawani Prasad against their conviction and sentences Under Section 304/34, Indian Penal Code. Each of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years under the above count by the Sessions Judge, Faizabad.2. The prosecution came to the court with the story that there was a Mahwa tree three or four furlongs to the south of village Reona on Banjar land belonging to Bhagwan Bux Singh complainant. There was another Mahwa tree about 300 paces to the north-west of the village belonging to appellant Bhawani Prasaa. There were consolidation proceedings in the village about four years before the present occurrence in which the land on which Mahwa tree of Bhagwan Bux Singh stood was included in the Chak of Bhawani Prasad appellant and was allotted to him and the land on which- the Mahwa tree of Bhawani Prasad stood was included in the Chak of Bhagwan Bux Singh and was allotted to him. The consoli...
Raj NaraIn Pandey Vs. Dy. Commissioner, Unnao and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All355
H.C.P. Tripathi, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary village level worker in the year 1961. On June 21, 1967, the Additional District Magistrate, Unnao, passed an order terminating his services on one month's notice. This writ petition is directed against that order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order amounts to an order of punishment and as the petitioner has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to show cause, the order is hit by Article 311 of the Constitution. The second point urged in support of the petition is that as certain village level workers iunior in service to the petitioner have been retained while the petitioner's services have been dispensed with there is an infringement of Article 16 of the Constitution. I find no force in any one of these contentions. 3. Admittedly petitioner was a temporary hand. The impugned order in terms does not leave any stigma on him. It is an innocuous order dispensing with the services ...
Punni Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All387
Gur Sharan Lal, J.1. This writ petition has been referred to a Division Bench because of a conflict between two Single Judge decisions of this Court mention in the order of reference of Satish Chandra, J. 2. The writ petition itself was filed to get quashed an order of Munsif Kasganj in which he held a revision filed before him under Section 89 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act to be time barred The revision had been filed beyond the period of sixty days provided in the said Section 89 for a party to apply to have an order of the Nyaya Panchayat revised. The contention of the applicant in revision was that he was entitled to exclude the period spent in obtaining a copy of the order of the Nyaya Panchayat sought to be revised. The learned Munsitf held that no such exclusion could be made as the provision in Section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act which permits the exclusion of time taken in obtaining a copy of the order sought to be revised is inapplicable to the case.In Ram Singh v. Pa...
Smt. Bitto Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All389
ORDERH.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. Under the provisional consolidation scheme petitioner was allotted Chak No. 276 and respondent Maharaj Singh was allotted Chak No. 189. Respondent No. 5 filed an objection against his Chak on 23-2-1967 before the Consolidation Officer issued a notice to the petitioner fixing 25-2-1967 for the hearing or the objection. That notice was not served on the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer, however, heard the objection, decided it and made material alterations in the Chak of the petitioner by taking away certain plots from it and substituting the same with others.2. The petitioner filed an appeal against that order which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer on the ground of delay. Petitioner's revision also met the same fate at the hands of the Deputy Director who held that the petitioner had failed to explain the delay of six days; hence this writ petition.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. No one is present to support the case of the ...
The National Security Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S.N. Jaggi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All421
K.B. Asthana, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 40 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act 1951 (No. LXX of 1951), hereinafter called the Act.2. One S. N. Jaggi made an application under Section 13 read with Section 18 of the Act before the Civil Judge of Allahabad who was constituted as the Tribunal under the Act. The applicant claimed recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,500/-from the National Security Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter called the Company) as compensation for the loss suffered by him on account of the looting and destruction of his property during the disturbances and riots on 7th and 8th of September 1947 in the town of Peshawar. The company had insured the goods in the shop covering a risk to the amount of Rs. 18,500/- and the goods in the house covering a risk to the amount of Rs. 8,000/-under a contract evidenced by a document of insurance policy No. 12225. The insurance policy was effective during the period 13-9-1946 to 13-9-1947. At the time when the sai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »