Allahabad Court December 1975 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.
U.P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow Vs. Mahabir Prasad Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1975
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...
Balbir Singh Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1784
ORDERO.P. Trivedi, J.1. This Criminal reference has been made by the Sessions Judge, Agra, recommending that the order of the III Assistant Sessions Judge, Agra, dated 3-12-1973 directing the filing of a criminal complaint against Balbir Singh for perjury may be quashed.2. The material facts leading to this reference are these; There was a criminal trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge for corn-mission of dacoity in the house of Padum Singh, father of Balbir Singh, on the night between 21st and 22nd September, 1971. Chandra Bhan was one of the accused persons in this case. According to the prosecution Chandra Bhan was identified by Balbir Singh amongst other witnesses. An identification parade was held in which Balbir Singh recognised Chandra Bhan and made a statement before the Committing Magistrate to the effect that he did not know Chandra Bhan from before.This evidence was repeated by him when he was reproduced at the trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge. But he admitted i...
St. Joseph's Higher Secondary School, Meerut Cantt. and Ors. Vs. Ravi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All390
Satish Chandra, J. 1. A learned single Judge of this Court has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court :--'Whether an educational institution established by a religious or a linguistic minority is bound by the provisions of Section 16-G (3) (a) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act ?'2. Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 16-G (3) of the aforesaid Act provides:--(a) No Principal, Head Master or teacher may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution in emoluments or served with notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector. The decision of the Inspector shall be communicated within the period to be prescribed by regulations. (b) The Inspector may approve or disapprove or reduce or enhance the punishment or approve or disapprove of the notice for termination of service proposed by the management. 3. Clause (c) of this provision provides for an appeal against t...
Dalip Singh and ors. Vs. the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradab ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All433
Satish Chandra, J. 1. Harbans Singh, respondent No. 2, purchased the plots in dispute by a sale deed dated September 15, 1956 for Rs. 4,000-00. The sale deed mentioned not only Harbans Singh but also his two minor sons, namely, Kiran Pal Singh and Kiran Singh, respondents Nos. 3 and 4, as purchasers. Subsequently, Harbans Singh, on March 15, 1962, sold a two-third share in the plots in dispute to Dalip Singh, petitioner No. 1, for Rs. 9,000-00. The remaining one-third share in the plots was sold to petitioners Nos. 2 and 7 for a sum of Rupees 4,500-00. 2. In 1967, Harbans Singh's sons, namely, respondents Nos. 3 and 4, filed a suit for the cancellation of the aforesaid two sale deeds executed by Harbans Singh, on the ground that they being minors, the sale deeds were invalid in respect of their shares in the plots. During the pendency of the suit, a notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was published. Thereupon the suit was abated by the Court. 3. The ...
V.E. Tressler Vs. Jagdish Prasad Agrawal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All318
Gopinath, J.1. This Is a judgment-debtor's execution second appeal. One Mr. E. C. Ray sold a specified half share in house No. 343 to the appellant who it appears was occupying the same earlier. By a separate agreement entered into on the same date, the appellant agreed to reconvey the property to the vendor after five years. On 19-4-1966, the right of reconveyance was transferred to Jagdish Pra-sad Agrewal the respondent, in the instant appeal. Jagdish Prasad Agrawal filed a suit No. 770 of 1966 against the appellant for specific performance of the agreement of reconveyance and for proprietary possession over the half share. The suit was decreed on the basis of a compromise. Under the compromise decree, the appellant bound himself to execute a sale deed of the property in dispute as envisaged by reconveyance agreement. He further agreed to deliver possession of the property after a specified time. Execution was sought of the decree by dispossession of the appellant, as he had failed t...
Vishambar Nath and anr. Vs. Deputy Director (Consolidation) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1975
Reported in: [1977]108ITR761(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. A learned single judge of this court has referred this writ petition to a Division Bench because he felt unable to agree withthe view taken by another hon'ble single judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4266 of 1963 [Raghubir Saran v. O.P. Jain : [1969]73ITR482(All) ] decided on 12th July, 1968.2. The relevant facts lie in a very short compass. During consolidation operations the petitioners' case was that the properties in dispute were joint Hindu family properties in which the petitioners had also a share. The respondents, however, took up the case that the properties were their separate assets. In support of their case the petitioners filed certified copy of a return filed on behalf of the Hindu joint family as also a certified copy of the statement of Ram Jag, respondent No. 7, made in the course of certain income-tax proceedings. Ram Jag took an objection to the admissi-bility of these documents. He relied on Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.3. ...
Sugan Chand JaIn Vs. Pradeep Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All394
ORDERChandra Prakash, J. 1. This is a defendants application in revision against the order dated 7-10-1974 of Sri Umesh Chandra, .Second Additional District Judge, Meerut, dismissing the applicant's revision.2. The suit giving rise to this Appeal was filed by the plaintiff opposite parties against the defendant applicant for the recovery of Rs. 853/- as arrears of rent, Rs. 499.20 P. as mesne profits and ejectment in the court of Munsif, Ghaziabad on the regular side in respectof the property detailed in the plaint. Later on, the suit was transferred to the court of Second Additional Civil Judge, Ghaziabad to be tried an the Small Causes Court side in view of Act No. 37 of U..P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972.3. The defendant applicant filed an objection that the suit could not be tried on the small Causes Court side. The Second Civil Judge after hearing the iparties came to the conclusion that he had jurisdiction to try the suit on the Small Causes Court side and he, therefore, reject...
Ram Niwas Vs. Municipal Board Nawabganj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All241
Hari Swarup, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment of the defendant and for possession over the shop in dispute. The plaintiff's case, in brief, was that the plaintiff Municipal Board was the owner of the property in dispute and the defendant was a licensee, the licence in favour of the defendant was created by the Municipal Board on 9-1-1962 for the period ending 31-3-1963 at a premium of Rs. 335/- and as the period of licence had expired it stood automatically revoked by lapse of time, and in any case impliedly revoked by the institution of the suit. The defence in the suit was that the defendant was not a licensee but a lessee and that the lease was still continuing by holding over, and unless it was terminated the defendant could not be ejected.2. The trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence held that the defendant was a lessee and not a licensee, and since the lease had not been terminated, the suit for ejectment was not maintainable. It acco...
Estrela Batteries Ltd. Vs. Modi Industries Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All201
ORDERN.D. Ojha, J. 1. The suit giving rise to the present revision was filed by the opposite party against the applicant for damages for breach of contract. The suit was in-stituted at Ghaziabad, The applicant has its registered office at Bombay. The suit was contested by the applicant, inter alia, on the ground that the Court at Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and it could be instituted only at Bombay. Third of Sept. 1974, was the date fixed for framing of issues. Issue No, 1 was to the effect whether the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit as alleged by the defendant. After framing issues on that date the Court fixed 12th October, 1974 for deciding issue No. 1 as a preliminary issue. In the meantime on 9th September, 1974, the applicant made an application for framing additional issues. This application was allowed on 14th September, 1974, and on 5th October, 1974 certain additional issues were framed. One of these additional issues being issue No. 7 was whethe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›