Allahabad Court April 1971 Judgments
Komal Charan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All503
Satish Chandra, J.1. The appellant was in 14th April, 1967, involved in an accident with a jeep car belonging to the State Government. On 25th September, 1967, he instituted a claim petition under Section 110-A. The Motor Vehicles Act, for compensation for the injuries received by him at the accident. The respondents contested the claim on various grounds. One of the pleas was of limitation. The District Judge, Bareilly, acting as the Claims Tribunal, framed a preliminary issue on the question of limitation.2. The prescribed period of limitation for a claim petition at the relevant time was, 60 days from the date of the accident. The appellant moved an application supported by an affidavit for condonation of the delay. The tribunal below held that the claim petition was filed admittedly beyond time and the explanation for the delay was not sufficient. It rejected the application for condoning the delay; and, consequently, it rejected the claim petition also. Aggrieved, the claimant has...
Tag this Judgment!Satyawati Devi Vs. Ram Ji Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All575
ORDERS.N. Katju, J.1. This is a wife's application in revision which arises out of a suit for divorce brought by her husband Ramji Sri-vastava. The suit was instituted in the Court of Judge, Small Cause Court, Varanasi. The learned Judge decreed the suit. The applicant challenged the decree by way of revision before the 2nd Additional District Judge, Varanasi. The only objection raised before the Court below was that the Small Cause Court Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Judge repelled the objection and dismissed the revision. His order has been challenged in revision before me.2. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that a suit for divorce is excepted from the cognizance of the Court of Small Causes under Clause (37) of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). There is no doubt that a Small Cause Court Judge cannot take cognizance of a suit for divorce.3. It was held by Oak, C. J. in Shesh...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswathi Press Vs. Nand Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1971
Reported in: (1971)IILLJ384All
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J.1. This is an appeal by the employer, Messrs Saraswati Press, against the order of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, directing him to pay Rs. 1176/- as compensation to the workman, Nand Ram. Two points were argued before me, namely, that there was no loss of earning capacity as the workman was getting the same salary as before the accident, and secondly, that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as fixed is excessive.2. It is true that the workman is getting the same salary after the accident as before the accident but loss of earning capacity is different from the actual wages or income of the workman. Once there is a loss in earning capacity, though the income remains the same, the workman becomes entitled to compensation at the prescribed rates. My attention was drawn to the case of Upper India Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Kartara 1970 A.L.J. 81 where on the basis of a English case King v. Port of London [1920] A.C. 1, only a suspensory award was made, i.e.,...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Hari Shankar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ60
Yashoda Nandan, J.1. The following question has been referred to this Full Bench for its opinion by K. N. Srivastava arid Hari Swarup, JJ:Whether the benefit of the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment as laid down in Section 12(2) Limitation Act can be extended to the Government in an appeal under Section 417, Criminal P. C. when the copy filed along with the memorandum of appeal was obtained by the accused and sent to a Department of the State Government for a purpose other then the filing of Government appeal?2. The material facts giving rise to this-reference are that the respondent Hari Shankar was convicted under Section 125 (91 of the Defence of India Rules and sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment by the City Magistrate, Bareill v. Hari Shankar appealed against his conviction and sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent. The State Government did not a...
Tag this Judgment!Farooq Ahmad Vs. Muneshwar Bux Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All155
Gur Sharan Lal, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for eiectment of the appellant Farooq Ahmad from a shop. The suit of the respondent Muneshwar Bux Singh was decreed by the trial court and the judgment and decree of the trial court were maintained in the first appeal filed by Farooq Ahmad and decided by Sri R. S. Bhargava, District Judge, Barabanki. Farooq Ahmad then filed this second appeal in this Court.2. The shop was admittedly taken on rent by Farooq Ahmad from Muneshwar Bux Singh. The latter claimed that a lease had been executed under which the tenancy was to terminate on 30-6-1965 unless the landlord agreed to continue the defendant as a tenant, A dispute was raised about the lease but it was held proved and no controversy has been raised in this court about this lease, Exhibit 4, having been executed by the appellant Faropq Ahmad. It is not in controversy that the appellant was retained as a tenant beyond 30-6-1965 and it wasonly on 13-2-1968 that a notice was sent ...
Tag this Judgment!The U.P. State and anr. Vs. Mohan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All521
Satish Chandra, J.1. On 18th March, 1963, Mohan Lal, the respondent entered into a contract with the State Government for the construction of a 9 feet wide service road along the Jhansi Babina Gravity Main, under contract bond No. 5/9/SE of 1962-63. After the work was finalised and payment in full and final settlement of its claim was made to the contractor, he raised a dispute claiming a sum of Rupees 35000/-, on the ground that he had spent this money over the extraction of roots of trees while the work of earth filling at the site was going on. He claimed that this extra work was done under verbal orders of the Engineers on the spot. The Department did not accept this claim. It was of the opinion that this work was a part of the work provided for in the contract, and, hence, no extra payment could be claimed.2. On 24-5-1966, the contractor moved an application for reference , of this dispute to the arbitration of the Chief Engineer, L. S. G. E. D., as provided by Clause 24 of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.L. Raizada
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR151(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax:' Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the salary payment of Rs. 12,000 to Shri P. N. Suri was an expenditure incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purposes of earning share of profits and remuneration from M/s. Standard & Co. and as such was an allowable deduction under the provisions of the Income-tax Act?'2. The assessee in this case is a Hindu undivided family, of which Shri K.L. Raizada is the karta. Shri K.L. Raizada became a partner in the firm, M/s. Standard & Co., Kanpur, in his capacity as karta of his family. For the assessment year 1961-62 the Standard & Company was assessed off a total income of Rs. 1.61,602. The assessee's share in the income of the said firm was determined at Rs. 18,843. This amount included a sum of Rs. 12,000 which ...
Tag this Judgment!Chedda Lal Vs. the Sub-divisional Officer, Mainpuri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All51
Gulati, J.1. This is an appeal by Chedda Lal, whose writ petition has been dismissed by the Hon'ble S. N. Dwivedi, J.2. The appellant and respondent Nos. 3 and 5 contested the election to the office of the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Kuchela. The appellant secured 684 votes, the respondent No. 3 secured 679 votes, the respondent No. 4 got 13 votes and respondent No. 5 obtained 16 votes. The appellant was declared elected by the Returning Officer. Respondent No. 3 filed an election petition on the ground amongst others that certain valid votes of his were wrongly rejected and certain invalid votes of the appellant were wrongly counted by the Returning Officer. The election petition filed by respondent No. 3 came before the Judicial Officer, who recorded evidence led by the parties. The ballot papers which were kept in a sealed cover by the Returning Officer were sent for by him for inspection and recounting. Before, however, the Judicial Officer pronounced the judgment, the case was transferr...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Das and ors. Vs. the Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All540
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Board of Revenue as the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority has referred to the Court under Section 57 of the Stamp Act the following questions for answers:--'(a) Whether the document under reference is a conveyance for Rs. 55,000/-and is chargeable with a duty of Rs. 2,475 under Article 23, Schedule I-B of the U. P. Stamp Act, 1962, and is also liable to an additional duty of Rs. 4.50 under Article 5 (c) read with Section 5 of the Stamp Act in respect of the two distinct agreements regarding the sale of Motor Cycle and Jeep car and exchange of certain property. (b) Whether the document is a deed of dissolution of partnership and is sufficiently stamped with a duty or Rs. 22.50 under Article 46-B, Schedule I-B, ibid. (c) Whether the document is a release of the value of Rs. 55,000 and is liable to a duty of Rs. 50 under Article 55, Schedule I-B, ibid. (d) Whether the document is merely an agreement between the parties and is chargeable with a duty of Rs. 2.25 und...
Tag this Judgment!Jeewan Nath Wahal Vs. State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All553
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of our brother Trivedi dated 4-11-1970 by which he dismissed writ petition No. 1037 of 1970 filed by the appellant Jeewan Nath Wahal.2. On 20-2-1964 the appellant made an application to the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut Region, respondent No. 1, (hereinafter referred to as R. T. A.), for the grant of a regular stage carriage permit on Meerut-Dankaur route was not an existing one and the applications contained the prayer that it may be opened. The R. T. A. published the applications. Later on it refused to open the route and for that reason rejected the applications. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 64 (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the State Transport (Appellate) Tribunal, U. P. Lucknow, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribubal). That appeal was allowed and a permit was granted to the petitioner. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 filed a writ petition at All...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »