Allahabad Court March 1976 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.
Nisar Ahmad and ors. Vs. the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All438
K.B. Asthana, C.J.1. The petitioners are landlords of an accommodation in Kanpur city. Opposite parties 3 to 9 and 11 are its tenants. The owner of this accommodation formerly was one Mohd. Ishaq. Before the petitioners purchased the accommodation from Mohd. Ishaq, water connection of the accommodation had been cut off by the Corporation of Kanpur as excess water charges had not been paid. When the petitioners became the owners of the accommodation the opposite parties 3 to 9 and 11 were tenants and the water connection stood cut off. After the petitioners acquired the ownership of the accommodation the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 9 and 11, filed an application under Section 7-D of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. Act III of 1947), for restoration of water connection as an amenity of which the tenants stood deprived of. The petitioners filed an objection to the effect that they were not responsible for cutting off the water connection and no action of the pe...
Prabandha Samiti, T.J.P. Arya Kannya Inter College, Etawah Through Its ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All488
J.M.L. Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner in this case is an educational institution for teaching girls for the High School and Intermediate examinations of the Intermediate Education Board of U. P. The institution is managed under a Scheme of Administration framed under Section 16-A of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter to be called the Act). Paragraph 20 of that Scheme, translated in English, is as follows.EMERGENCY PROVISION:(1) When the State Government is of the opinion that circumstances have arisen which have rendered it impossible to properly carry on the administration of the institution in the normal manner, it may appoint an administrator- Provided that no such administrator shall be appointed except; (a) on the recommendation of the committee, or (b) on the recommendation of the Director of Education after allowing the President an opportunity to submit a written explanation against the said recommendation. (2) Upon such appointment being made the committee and all...
Manmohan Singh Vs. Smt. Mahindra Kaur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1664
ORDERB.N. Katju, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C., 1973.2. The opposite party filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. 1973 against the applicant dated 6-5-1974 in the court of C. J. M., Dehradun. The applicant filed his written statement on 4-6-1974. Thereafter the statements of the opposite party and the applicant were recorded by the C. J. M., Dehradun on 23-11-1974 and 6-2-1975 respectively. The C. J. M., Dehradun by his order dated 3-8-1975 directed the applicant to pay Rs. 300 per month to the opposite party as maintenance allowance with effect from 7-5-1974. The applicant filed Criminal Revision No. 33 of 1974 against the aforesaid order which was allowed in part by the Sessions Judge, Dehradun by his order dated 2-9-1975 and the applicant was directed to pay Rs. 150 per month as maintenance allowance to the opposite party with effect from 7-5-1974.3. Under Section 125(1)(a), Cr., P. C. 1973 maintenance allowance cannot be granted to every wife who...
Mata Badal Pandey and anr. Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All420
K.B. Asthana, C.J. 1. One Drig Vijai Bahadur Singh, a Zamindar took a loan on the foot of a promissory note executed by him in favour of Mata Badal Pandey and Krishna Murari. The promissory note remained unpaid when the executant thereof applied for liquidation of his debts under the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. A Special Judge I Grade on 20-4-1937 passed a decree under Section 14 of the said Act, which decree was eventually modified by the Chief Court at Luc-know on 14-2-1942 and a sum of Rs. 3,380 plus costs, Rs. 64 and Rs. 110/3/- as interest were found due. The decree was to carry future interest at the rate of 4 1/4% per annum upto the date of realisation. The said decree was transmitted to the Collector for execution under Section 19 of the said Act, During the pendency of the execution proceedings U. P. Zamin-dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came into force. All the landed properties of the Zamindar respondent were acquired and he was aw...
The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Firm Banshidhar Premsukh Dass and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All491
H.N. Kapoor, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25-9-1965 of the II Addl. Civil Judge, Agra in Civil Appeal No. 245 of 1965 reversing the decree of the Munsif, Agra dated 31-3-1965 in original suit No. 547 of 1962.2. The plaintiff had brought a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,183/- as value of the goods short delivered, Rs. 1,000/- as damages for deterioration in quality and Rs. 270/- as interest. The plaintiff had booked one consignment of mustard oil on 9-10-1961 in one tank wagon containing 186 quintals and 45 kg. for carriage to Kulpighat from Jamuna Bridge, Agra. When the wagon reached the destination, it was dicovered that its original seals, lables and the iron rings were broken and subsequently its contents were transhipped to another wagon of sweet-oil. The plaintiff thereupon took delivery of the goods after weighing and it was found that it was short by 15 quintals 45 kg. of oil. The plaintiff also alleged that the quality of the oil ...
Dildar Khan Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ118
ORDERB.N. Katju, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C.2. Proceedings under Section 145. Cr.P.C. were initiated against the applicant and opposite party No. 2 in the court of S.D.M., Budaun on the basis of a police report dated 13-11-1973. The preliminary order under Section 145, Cr.P.C. was passed by the learned Magistrate on 31-12-1973 attaching the land in dispute. Evidence was led by both the parties in support of their claim of possession over the land in dispute. The learned Magistrate was unable to decide the question of possession and referred the matter to the civil court for decision under Section 146, Cr.P.C. The learned Munsif, Budaun by his order dated 8-2-1975 held that the opposite party No. 2 was in possession of the disputed land at the relevant time. The learned S.D.M.. Budaun passed en order dated 14-3-1975 in accordance with the finding of the learned Munsif declaring that the opposite party was in possession of the land in dispute on the date of the...
Commissioner of Sales-tax, U.P., Lucknow Vs. M/S. Hari Bhagwan Basdeo.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)139
C. S. P. Singh, J. - The Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Bareilly Range, Bareilly has referred the following two questions for our opinion :-'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, conversion of Khandsari sugar into Kulia amounts to manufacture of a new commercial marketable commodity ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Judge (Revisions), Bareilly was legally correct and justified that Kulia and Khandsari sugar are one and the same thing and thus exempting from sales tax, the turnover of the sales of Kulia manufactured from locally purchased Khandsari sugar ?2. Both the questions are covered by the decision in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Ms. Damodar Das (1972 U.P.T.C. 105). We accordingly answer the first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative, against the Department and in favour of the assessee. As none has appeared to oppose this reference, there shall be no order as t...
State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. Vs. K.P. Sui and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All279
G.C. Mathur, J.1. (On difference of opinion between the Judges constituting the Division Bench before the Special Appeal came for hearing):Consequent upon a difference of opinion between the learned Judges constituting the Bench hearing the Special Appeal and the writ petitions the following three questions have been referred to me for opinion:--1. What is the true interpretation and scope of Section 41 (e) (v) of the U. P. Excise Act? 2. Whether the Excise Commissioner can make Rule 13-B in exercise of his powers under the U. P. Excise Act? 3. Whether the closure of the licensed premises on Tuesdays as a condition in the licence of the petitioner became a binding term of the contract and the licensee could not be allowed to avoid it through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution? 2. The U. P. Excise Act, 1910, makes provisions relating to the import, export, transport, manufacture, sale and possession of intoxicating liquors and intoxicating drugs. Section 3 of the Act defin...
Mahadeo and anr. Vs. Smt. Umaraj (Dead) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All283
K.S. Varma, J. 1. The circumstances in which these two second appeals came to be filed are as follows:--One Jagat Pal Singh filed a suit against Mahadeo, Devi Dayal Tewari, Gaya Prasad Tewari, Vijai Shankar Tewari, Rameshwar Tewari, Shrimati Rajrani, Chandra Bhukhan Singh, Gajraj Singh and Sukhdeo Singh for a permanent injunction restraining them from obstructing the irrigation of plot No. 195/1 and a few other plots from a well situate on plot No. 193/1 in village Naraulha, Pargana, Tahsil and District Rae Bareli. A sum of Rs. 50/- was claimed on account of damages for the loss of crop. It is an admitted position that Jagat Pal Singh, Mahadeo and others defendants are co-Bhumidhars of plot 193/1. The plaintiff has come to Court with the allegations that his Chak after the Consolidation operations now includes plots 174, 393/3, 193/2, 194/1, 195/1, 196/1, 197/1 and 198/1 and the total area is 4 Bighas, 12 Biswas and 12 Dhurs. Before Consolidation operations, plot 195/1 was in the tenan...
ManuddIn Vs. the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All508
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. The fate of the petition hinges on a compromise entered between the two brothers opposite party No. 5 Barkat Ali and husband of opposite party No. 7, Amjad Ali since deceased. On 25th October, 1966 Amjad Ali deposited the requisite amount for acquisition of Bhumidhari Sanad and on the same day he executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The application for grant of Sanad was contested by opposite party No. 5 on the ground that he was in possession and was co-sirdar of the land in dispute and a suit under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act was filed by Amjad Ali and it was dismissed. The Assistant Collector however found that in 1959 a suit for partition under Section 176 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act I of 1961 was filed by Amjad Ali against opposite party No. 5 which was decreed and a preliminary decree was prepared. He therefore passed an order dated 13-10-1967 granting Sanad. The effect of this order was that Amjad Ali bec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »