Allahabad Court November 1974 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.
Jaswant Sugar Mills Co. Limited Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1974
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ16All
R.L. Gulati, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company which runs a sugar factory at Meerut. In December, 1955 some of the workmen of the factory raised certain demands. The demands not having been met, they decided to launch direct action by adopting go slow policy. The petitioner-company served charge-sheets on 63 workmen for having resorted to go slow action, On enquiry they were all found guilty. The petitioner-company (hereafter moved an application before the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer for permission to dismiss them. The Additional Regional Conciliation Officer granted the permission for the dismissal of 11 workmen but refused permission in respect of the remaining 52 workmen. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Labour Tribunal. The appeal was rejected on the ground that it was not maintainable. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also held that the appeal was not maintainable as the conciliation office...
Smt. Urmil Bahri and ors. Vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All198
ORDERC.S.P. Singh, J. 1. Devendra Bahri, a practising lawyer of this Court met with a car accident, as a result of which he sustained injuries. He filed a claim for damages for the injuries so received. Subsequent to the filing of this claim, he died on 14-11-1970. On 2.8-11-1970, an application was moved before the Claims Tribunal for being permitted to amend the claim by enhancing the amount of damages claimed. The reason for enhancement of the claim was the death of Mr. Devendra Bahri, and in the application it was alleged that the deceased had died on account of the injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the widow and the minor sons and they have filed the present petition challenging that order.2. Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, a speedy remedy has been provided for adjudicating upon claims for compensation made by persons who have been injured or killed in a motor accident. Section 110-A (3) of the Act provides for the period of l...
Ganesh Prasad Varma Vs. Goverdhan Dass and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All146
ORDERG.C. Mathur, J.1. This is a revision by the judgment-debtor against the order of the Second Civil Judge, Kanpur, rejecting his objection that the execution of the decree was barred by Section 11 of the Court-fees Act.2. The applicant was a tenant of premises known as 'Jai Hind Cinema Building' at Kanpur and the contesting opposite parties were the landlords thereof. The landlords filed a number of suits against the tenant of which Suit No. 70 of 1958 was for ejectment, for recovery of arrears of rent and for mesne profits for use and occupation. The other suits were for recovery of arrears of rent, for mesne profits for use and occupation for certain periods and for recovery of insurance charges. The disputes in all the suits were settled by a compromise dated October 7, 1966 which was filed in Suit No. 70 of 1958 and all the suits were decreed in terms of this compromise. Under the compromise, the plaintiff decree-holder was awarded :(i) A decree for the ejectment of the judgment...
Sanyukta Prantiya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mewa Lal Gu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All211
ORDERHari Swarup, J.1. This application under Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made by the plaintiff-appellant for striking off the defence and deciding the appeal without giving the defendant-respondent a hearing in the appeal because the defendant has not deposited the amount of rent alleged to be due.2. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant from the premises in dispute and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant was his tenant and had not paid rent. The plaintiff claimed to have terminated the tenancy by a notice under Section 111(h) read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. He also claimed that the defendant had committed default in payment of rent as he had not paid rent within one month of the notice of demand. The plaintiff also claimed that the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act was not applicable to the premises in dispu...
Sher Singh and ors. Vs. Pirthi Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All259
K.N. Seth, J.1. The suit giving rise to the present appeal was filed by the plaintiff respondent Pirthi Singh (deceased) for cancellation of a deed of gift dated 12-12-1967 executed by him in favour of the defendants in respect of his agricultural Bhumidhari and other immovable properties detailed at the foot of the plaint. It was alleged that the plaintiff was an old illiterate person, weak in intellect and physically infirm. He was ailing for the last ten years and had lost his capacity to understand anything; that he had no male issue to look after him and his cultivation and had only two married daughters. His wife had died long time back. The defendants were the grandsons of his uncle Harnam.They colluded with a view to usurp his properties and taking advantage of the plaintiff's weakness and the absence of his daughters got the gift deed in suit executed by him on the representation that it was a deed of will in favour of his daughters. The plaintiff fell a victim to their persua...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1974
Reported in: [1978]114ITR729(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. For the assessment year 1959-60, Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd., Mansurpur, the assessee, was assessed to an income of Rs. 1,71,577 by an assessment order dated March 31, 1964. The Income-tax Officer applied Rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules for granting extra shift allowance on machinery and plant, and worked out this allowance to Rs. 1,18,509. This was on the basis that 50 per cent. of the normal depreciation was allowable. The assessee felt aggrieved and went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who reduced the assessable income to Rs. 1,35,861. The extra shift allowance given by the Income-tax Officer was not modified. 2. On February 21, 1968, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, calling upon the assessee to show cause why the extra shift allowance be not rectified. The assessee filed an objection, but by an order dated March 28, 1968, the Income-tax Officer held that the extra shift all...
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Jai Singh Dixit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1974
Reported in: (1976)ILLJ246All
D.S. Mathur, C.J.1. These four Special Appeals Nos. 129, 137, 189 and 234 of 1974 arise out of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein order of suspension pending inquiry was challenged. Jai Singh Dixit, respondent in Special Appeal No. 129 of 1974, Rama Kant Saxena, respondent in Special Appeal No. 137 of 1974, and Ganesh Dutt Joshi, respondent in Special Appeal No. 234 of 1974, were suspended under Rule 49A of the U.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (to be referred hereinafter as C.C.A, Rules), while Inder Deo Tiwari, respondent in Special Appeal No. 189 of 1974, under Rule 1A of the UP. Punishment and Appeal Rules. The order of suspension pending inquiry was quashed in the first two Special Appeals because the respondent was suspended before the framing of charges or completion of the preliminary inquiry, and there were no compelling or exceptional circumstances to depart from the! normal rule not to place a Government servant under s...
Roshanlal and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1877
K.N. Seth, J.1. The constitutional validity of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was unsuccessfully challenged in Banwari Lal v. The State : AIR1956All341 . The Bench negatived the Contention that the provisions of Section 342 of the Code are violative of Article 22(2) (sic) (2)(3) of the Constitution of India. Before the Bench hearing the above noted cases it was urged that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad : 1961CriLJ856 the authority of the judgment of this Court in the case referred to above has been shaken. Reference was also made to the views expressed by Seervai in his treatise Constitutional Law of India's and Durga Das Basu's views in his Commentary on the Constitution of India. It was felt that the question of validity of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 342 of the Code requires reconsideration and consequently the following question has been referred to a Full Bench : -. 'Whether Sub-sections (2) and (3) o...
Haji Ramzan Ali and Sons Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1974
Reported in: [1975]36STC570(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner is a general merchant at Allahabad. Among other articles of merchandise he purchased and sold tooth-paste and toothbrushes. One of the questions, which arose before the sales tax authorities, was whether tooth-paste and toothbrushes were toilet goods taxable at single point at 7 per cent or they were unclassified goods taxable at 2 per cent. In the assessment year 1962-63, the Sales Tax Officer treated them as toilet goods and levied tax at 7 per cent, but, on appeal, it was held that these items were unclassified items and were taxable at 2 per cent. The petitioner has stated that thereafter he started realising sales tax at 2 percent only and continued to do so until 15th March, 1969, when for the first time the Additional Revising Authority, Allahabad, by his judgment allowed the revision filed by the State for the assessment year 1962-63 and held that the appropriate rate was 7 per cent. Th...
Raghuraj Singh Vs. the District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ896
ORDERR.L. Gulati, J.1. The petitioner held a licence for a D. B. B. L. Gun. The licence was granted by the District Magistrate, Kanpur. It appears that a riot took place between the two factions in the home village of the petitioner as a result whereof two persons lost their lives. In a report lodged with the police the petitioner was named as one of the persons of the unlawful assembly and, as such, he was chal-laned under Section 147/148, 307, Indian Penal Code. This incident took place within the jurisdiction of District Magis-1 trate, Fatehpur, the first respondent. The District Magistrate, Fatehpur suspended the petitioner's licence and issued a notice calling upon him to show cause why his licence should not be revoked. The petitioner has challenged the order of the District Magistrate, Fatehpur suspending his licence.2. The principal ground of challenge is that the licence having been issued by the District Magistrate, Kanpur, the District Magistrate, Fatehpur had no jurisdictio...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »