Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1976All313
Hari Swarup, J. 1. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment, of the learned Single Judge by which he dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the motion of no-confidence passed against him. The petitioner was elected President of the Municipal Board, Ghaziabad. A notice of no-confidence was given to the District Magistrate by certain members of the Board. In pursuance thereof the meeting was held on 24-8-1973. At that meeting the motion was declared carried. 2. Before the learned single Judgethe petitioner had challenged the proceedings on various grounds. But before us the learned counsel has confined his arguments on the interpretation of sub-Section (9) of Section 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act. According to the learned counsel the manner of voting adopted by the presiding officer was inherently confusing and was thus not capable of bringing out correct results. At the time of the meeting one of the members prayed that the Voting should not be done o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1976All315
G.C. Mathur, J.1. The only question, which arises for determination in this appeal by the State Government, is whether, in the draft scheme prepared under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, particulars regarding the adequacy of the services proposed to be rendered by the State Transport Undertaking are required to be given or not. The learned Single Judge, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in B. H. Aswathanarayana Singh etc. v. State of Mysore, AIR 1965 SC 1848 has held that such particulars are required to be given and, in case they are not given, the draft scheme would be defective and liable to be quashed. The main argument of the learned Standing Counsel is that the learned Single Judge has not correctly interpreted the Supreme Court decision and that, upon a proper reading thereof and of the provisions of the Act, it is clear that no particulars regarding the adequacy of the road transport services proposed to be rendered need be given in the draft scheme.S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1976CriLJ1783
ORDERB.N. Katju, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Criminal P. C.2. According to the facts stated in the application a report under Sections 147, 420 and 341, I. P. G. was lodged by opposite party No. 2 son of opposite party No. 1 against the applicant and others on 11-6-75 at police station Hasanpur. The police thereafter seized truck No. U.S.N. 5873 along with the trolley from the possession of the applicant on the same day (11-6-1975). An application was filed by opposite party No, 1 on 17-6-1975 in the court of the 2nd Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Moradabad for the release of the said truck and the trolley in his favour. The application was allowed by the learned Magistrate on 18-7-1975 and the truck and the trolley were released in favour of opposite No. 1. The applicant filed a revision in the court of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad against the aforesaid order of the Magistrate which was dismissed on 7-8-1975.3. It may be mentioned that charge sheet was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1976CriLJ1820
ORDERHari Swarup, J.1. This revision has been filed by the applicant against his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of four months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 300 awarded to him for the offence. The case of the prosecution in brief was that the accused was found carrying milk in a container exhibiting the same for sale. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity purchased 660 milli-litres of milk on payment of price and divided the same into samples as required by law. At the time of the purchase the accused had told the Food Inspector that it was a mixture of cow milk and goat milk in equal proportions. The sample of milk was sent for analysis and the Public Analyst found the milk deficient in non-fatty solids contents by about 25%. Fat contents were 3.9% and non-fatty solids were 6%. The Public Analyst had applied the standard derived from the statutory standards for cow milk and goat milk mixed in the proportion specified by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1988]112ITR173(All)
Hari Swarup, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of the 1stCivil and Sessions Judge by which he dismissed the revision filed againstthe trial court's order refusing to discharge the accused on his plea thatthe prosecution could not legally proceed.2. A complaint was filed by the Income-tax Officer for an offence under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The complaint made the allegation that for the assessment year 1963-64, the accused had filed a return in which he had concealed the particulars of his income. The summonses were issued to the accused but before the charge was framed an objection was taken to the further proceeding of the trial in view of Section 279 of the Act. It was urged that the complaint had not been filed at the instance of the Commissioner and that the case could not proceed against the accused in view of the penalty being waived within the meaning of Section 279(1A) of the Act. The contentions were not acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1976All195
T.S. Misra, J. 1. The following question has been referred to the Full Bench for opinion: --'Whether a custom under which daughters are excluded from inheriting the property of their father can by implication exclude the daughters' issues both males and females, also from such inheritance ?'The facts to the extent they are material are these. Ghurpattari and others filed Suit No. 180 of 1964 for securing possession of a house situate in Mauza Nasirpur, pergana Bidhar, Tehsil Tanda, Dist. Faizabad, alleging that the suit house belonged to Lautan, ancestor of the parties, that Khilawan great grandson of Lautan had illicit relations with Smt. Jaggo who gave birth to three daughters, but all of them died of Cholera, and that Jaggo's sister had two daughters, Baldei and Rajdei who were brought up by Khilawan and Jaggo as their own daughters. Sarju Din defendant No. 2 was son of Baldei, Khilawan died about 20 years before the institution of the suit. Smt. Jaggoo had no right in the property,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(All)0108A
C. S. P. Singh, J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench has at the instance of the Additional Commissioner Income-tax, Lucknow, referred the following question for our opinion :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the objects of the assessee trust are charitable within the meaning of section 2(15) and that its income is exempt to the extent provided under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. One Niranjan Lal Bhargava created a trust which is the assessee in this case. The trust deed was executed on 13th October, 1952 and registered on the 19th March, 1953. The deed declared that the Niranjan Cinema and its building would vest in the trust deed. The object of the trust was to establish an educational institution where the religious teaching would be compulsory alongwith the study of ordinary subjects. Preference in admission was to be given to students belonging to Bhargava caste and in the event of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1976All512
ORDERK.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for recalling the order dated October 27, 1975, on the ground that the said judgment was given without hearing counsel appearing for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The ground disclosed in the application makes out a case for setting aside the said order inasmuch as Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, who was appearing for these respondents did not have any notice. I accordingly recall the order dated October 27, 1975. Heard counsel for the parties on merits of the case.2. The only question involved in this case is about the scope of Explanation (iv) to Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The said explanation reads as under:'the fact that the building under tenancy is a part of a building the remaining part whereof is in the occupation of the landlord for the residential purposes, shall be conclusive to prove that the building is bona fide required by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1976All290
Asthana, C.J.1. I am indebted to brothers Satish Chandra and C. S. P. Singh for the opinions they have prepared, which I had the benefit of perusing. They have very dextrougly reviewed almost whole of the law and have very ably arrived at certain conclusions on the vexed questions which have defied solution and have been a prolific source of litigation in the subordinate courts and in the High Court without end. The decided cases of this Court noticed by my learned brothers show that despite all efforts we have only succeeded in cooking a soup of varied hue and colour and nobody has been the wiser as to what it is and what it tastes like. I share the view of brother C. S. P. Singh that the situation calls for modification of the relevant rules for achieving clarity and definiteness. There is no denying the fact that in the day to day working of the subordinate Courts in the exercise of their civil jurisdiction the problems posed will always arise in the disposal of the cases on the adj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1976All369
ORDERPrem Prakash, J.1. This rule in revision hasbeen obtained against the order of Addl. District Judge, Lucknow, made under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 awarding Rs. 2400/- as compensation for the trees that were cut away by the U. P. State Electricity Board in laying the transmission line (Single circuit Kanpur-Lucknow line). An application was made by the opposite party for award of a sum of Rs. 3,400/- as compensation, the Chief Engineer having determined the amount in a sum of Rs. 320/-. The learned Addl. District Judge upon a survey of the evidence, adduced by the opposite party, held that he was entitled to compensation in a sum of Rs. 2400/-. The State Electricity Board did not produce any evidence in rebuttal of the evidence so adduced by the opposite party. Accordingly, he made an order of the description aforesaid, directing the State Electricity Board to pay Rs. 2400/- to the opposite party.2. Being aggrieved against that order the U. P. State Electricity...
Tag this Judgment!