Allahabad Court March 1973 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.
Brij Bhushan Dubey and ors. Vs. Paraidhan Dubey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All102
Ojha, J. 1. The appellants and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are descendants of a common ancestor Ram Rachha Dubey. They were joint sir holders of the land in dispute. A suit was filed by the appellants for joint possession over the land in dispute in the Civil Court which was decreed and joint possession was delivered to them in execution of the said decree on 1-3-1929. It appears that proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also initiated in respect of this land and an order was passed on 31-5-1929 holding Ram Swarup Dubey father of respondent No. 1 to be in physical possession over the land in dispute. The Magistrate passing the aforesaid order took into consideration the decree passed for joint possession by the Civil Court and specifically held that even though the appellant! will not be entitled to interfere with the physical possession of Ram Swarup Dubey over the land in dispute until they obtained a decree from a competent Court for posses-lion, they co...
Shyam Ratti and ors. Vs. Khalil and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All577
N.D. Ojha, J. 1. During proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act an objection was filed by the appellants claiming to be sirdars of the land in dispute.In the basic year the name of respondent No. 1 stood recorded as tenure holder; whereas the appellants were recorded as Qabiz as mortgagees in the remarks column. The objection of the appellants was allowed by the Consolidation Officer, but on appeal by respondent No. 1 it was held that the appellants were only asamis of the land in dispute. The Deputy Director of Consolidation on a revision filed by the appellants held them to be sirdars. Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in this Court which was allowed by a learned Single Judge by the judgment under appeal, whereby the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was quashed and he was directed to decide the revision afresh.2. In order to appreciate the respective contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties it would be necessary to have a few facts. ...
Prayag Das Vs. Civil Judge, Bulandshahr and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All133
M.N. Shukla, J. 1. The petitioner, an Advocate practising in the Mofussil Courts at Bulandshahr, takes exception to the dress prescribed for Advocates and challenges the power to impose any fetters on the ground of dress on an Advocate's right to practice in the courts in this Slate. He has, therefore, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the impugned orders of the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr (respondent No. I) preventing him from appearing in his court and also Rule 615, General Rules (Civil), 1957 be quashed and that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued 'directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in their courts as an Advocate wearing Dhoti, Kurta and gown as his dress.'2. The petitioner claims to have launched a crusade for securing recognition to Dhoti and Kurta as court dress. For that purpose he gave notice to the High Court, the District Judge, Bulandshahr and other Civil Judges of Bulandshahr, Ear C...
Sri Tej Chaddha Vs. Smt. Sideshwari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All324
S. Malik, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of the judgment dated 8-5-1972 of the 1st Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, confirming the order dated 18-12-1971 of the Execution Court (Munsif City), Kanpur, rejecting the appellant's objections under Section 47 or the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The respondents (decree-holders) filed a suit (No. 357 of 1962) under Section 3 (i) (a) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. III of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the ejectment of the appellant who, admittedly, was the tenant of the respondents of the premises in suit. After issues had been framed in the suit, the parties entered into a compromise and under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure the decree in question was passed on 7-1-1966 in terms of the compromise. Under the compromise the parties agreed that the judgment-debtor (appellant) will vacate the premises by 31st of December, 1970 and that ti...
Mst. Sonpatti Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All417
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. This special appeal, which is directed against thedecision of a learned Single Judge, is primarily concerned with the interpretation to be put on Section 6 of the U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Supplementary Act).2. The appellant claimed Adhivasi rights by virtue of an entry in her name as an occupant in the Khasra of 1356 F. The contesting respondents were, however, entered as being in cultivatory possession in 1359 F, and this being so the Board of Revenue following a decision of this Court held that the appellant's right as an Adhivasi based on the Khasra of 1356 F, must yield to the rights of the respondents who had become Adhivasis under the Supplementary Act. Before the learned Single Judge it was urged that inasmuch as the respondents had filed a suit under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and obtained a decree for dispossession of the appellant, this went to show that rights had accrued to the respondents under the U.P...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Kapil Deo Kishun Deo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC621(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference Under Section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow.2. The assessee deals amongst other things in foodgrains. During the assessment year 1964-65, there was a change in the tax liability on the turnover of foodgrains. For the first six months from 1st April, 1964, to 30th September, 1964, the turnover of foodgrains was liable to sales tax. With effect from 1st October, 1964, foodgrains became liable to purchase tax Under Section 3-D. Only the first purchases were so liable. In either case the minimum taxable limit remained at Rs. 25,000. In other words, the sale of foodgrains was liable to tax only if the turnover of sales exceeded Rs. 25,000 and, similarly, the first purchases of food-grains were liable to sales tax, if the turnover of such purchases exceeded Rs. 25,000.3. The Sales Tax Officer determined the turnover of sales of the assessee for the first six months at Rs. 14,000 and the tu...
Committee of Management Clutterbuckganj Intermediate College, Bareilly ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All579
ORDER1. Committee of Management, Clutterbuckganj Intermediate College, Bareilly has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Aforesaid Committee runs an educational institution called the Clutterbuckganj Inter College, Bareilly which is recognised by the Board of High School andIntermediate Education, U. P. On 29th of June, 1972, the Director of Education, U. P. sent a communication to the Committee, purporting to be under Section 16-D (2) of the U. P. Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1972. In that communication he pointed out 37 irregularities in the management of the aforesaid college and asked the Committee to remove them within one month of the date of its receipt. He also required the committee to forward to him a compliance report in duplicate through the District Inspector of Schools. It was further mentioned in that communication that in case no reply was received by the Director, it will be taken that the Committee had nothing to say in the matter and ...
Vyas Tewari Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1420
ORDERB.D. Gupta, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Vyas Tewari who' has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. The sentence awarded is fine in a sum of Rs. 1,500/-. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having sera tinised the material before me, I find myself unable to maintain the conviction of the applicant.2. The applicant was employed as a Pump Fitter in the electric shop of the Loco Workshop of the North-Eastern Railway at Gorakhpur. The charge against the applicant was that on the 1st October. 1969, at about 1-30 p.m.. when the applicant was coming out of the workshop through a gate, not meant for the purpose, suspicion of Paras Ram (P-W. 2). a Guard at the date, was aroused and the applicant's person was searched as a result whereof property belonging to the railway consisting of a large number of pieces of brass having a total weight of about 10 kgs. were found in or about the u...
Rai Ranjeet Singh and ors. Vs. Bind Bahadur Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All547
ORDERD.S. Mathur, Actg. C.J.1. This Is a plaintiffs' revision under Section 115. C.P.C. arising out of a suit instituted by Rai Ranjeet Singh, his son Surya Nath Singh and the latter's minor sons Ashok Kumar and Pradeep Kumar, for the recovery of the amount advanced to the defendant Bind Bahadur Singh. under a pronote and receipt dated September 14, 1965, executed by the defendant in favour of Rai Ranjeet Singh alone. The amount claimed in the suit included Rs. 225/- towards principal and Rs. 67/-by way of interest. The plaintiffs' case was that Rai Ranjeet Singh was the Karta of the joint Hindu family which included his sons and grandsons and because the two grandsons were minors, the suit was not cognizable by the Nyaya Panchayat and hence was instituted in the Court of the Judge Small Cause, Jaunpur.2. The Judge Small Cause Court repelled the contention that the suit was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat and accepting the plaintiffs' case, decreed the suit in ...
Lachman D. Chablani Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All558
T.S. Misra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Lucknow. dismissing the objection of the appellant to the award made by the sole arbitrator in a dispute between Sri Lachman D. Chablani and the Union of India. That dispute had arisen between the said parties out of a contract for handling and transport of foodgrains at Central Storage Depot. Lucknow for the period from 21st July. 1957 to 20th July. 1958-2. The present appellant filed an application under Section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act in the court of the Civil Judge. Lucknow for appointment of an arbitrator to decide the dispute and give his award. By an order dated 22nd April, 1964 the learned Civil Judge. Lucknow appointed Sri V. Ramaswami Iyer as sole arbitrator in the case and directed the parties to appear before him on 25th April. 1964. The arbitrator was also directed to file the award within two months. On 25th April. 1964 the present appellant appeared before the arbit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »