Allahabad Court January 1977 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.
Surya Mani Tewari Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ845
K.G. Agarwal, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 Criminal P.C. for reviewing the judgment of this Court passed by me on 14-12-1976, rejecting the criminal revision filed by the applicant in limine.2. Sri B.P. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant in this case, urged that as the Magistrate did not comply with the procedure prescribed by Section 248 of Chapter XIX of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, therefore, the sentence awarded to the applicant was illegal and was liable to be quashed. The material portion of Section 248, on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the applicant, in support of his submission, is quoted below:(2) Where, in any case under this Chapter, the Magistrate finds the accused guilty, but does not proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 325 or Section 360, he shall, after hearing the accused on the question of sentence, pass sentence upon him according to law.3. Admittedly, in the instant case the applicant was ...
Syed Mohd. Idris Vs. 1st Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All296
ORDERD.N. Jha, J. 1. This writ petition has been directed by Syed Mohd. Idris challenging the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow, dated 13-3-1973 contained in Annexure 3 and the order dated 21-3-1975 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Lucknow, contained in Annexure 4. 2. In brief the facts are that house No. 6 situate in Mohalla Chirendhapurwa near Baisi Ki Masjid, Lucknow, of which the petitioner is the tenant was formerly owned by one Smt. Nasim Bano and her husband Shri Zahoor Ahmad (hereinafter to be referred as the original landlord). The original landlord obtained a permission under Section 3 of the old U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. Act III of 1947) for permission to file a suit for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that they were not keeping good health and have been medically advised to shift in the upper storey which was in the occupation of the petitioner. The permission was granted to them and in pursuance of ...
Shambhu Dayal Vs. District Judge, Rae Bareli and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All447
ORDERD.N. Jha, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court and the District Judge Rae Bareli dated 31st May, 1973 and 7th February 1974 respectively.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was a tenant of shop of which opposite party No. 3 Chandra Mohan was the landlord. The petitioner fell in arrears of rent and after serving notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act opposite party No. 3 Chandra Mohan filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner Two notices were sent by Registered Post on 15th November, 1972 and 22nd November, 1972 respectively but they were returned unserved. Ultimately, on 14th December, 1972 Chandra Mohan opposite party No. 3 took a written notice for delivery on the petitioner who refused the same. The notice was read out loudly in the presence of the witnesses. This notice was also signed by one Phool Chan...
Ram Singh and Sons Engineering Works and anr. Vs. the State of Uttar P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1977
Reported in: [1977]39STC424(All)
D.M. Chandrashekhar, J.1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are common. They have impugned two notices issued under Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), calling upon the petitioners to show cause why the orders of assessment of the petitioners to sales tax for the years 1969-70 and 1970-71 should not be rectified.2. In the original assessments for the aforesaid two years the Sales Tax Officer had treated certain transactions of the petitioners as amounting to works contract and hence not assessable to sales tax. In the impugned notices the Sales Tax Officer has proposed to treat the aforesaid transactions as assessable to sales tax.3. In the assessment of the petitioners for the year 1965-66 certain transactions of the petitioners were claimed as amounting to works contract and hence not assessable to sales tax, but the Sales Tax Officer had rejected that claim and treated those transactions as amountin...
Piyarey Lal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1034
Prem Prakash, J.1. Fyare Lal, found guilty of the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (to be hereinafter referred as the Act) and sentenced to a term of 8 months' R.I. by a Magistrate, First Class, Barabanki, which in appeal was reduced to a term of six months R.I. has obtained this rule in revision against the order of the IIIrd Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Barabanki. While admitting the revision, a learned single Judge of this Court issued notice for enhancement of sentence under Section 439(2), Cr.P.C. In this manner the two revisions are before us.2. The facts, as they have been found by the two courts below, are : The Food Inspector found the revisionist, Pyare Lal, selling 'Kampats' (sweets) near the Sugar Mill, Barabanki, on 21st March, 1972. The Food Inspector purchased 450 grams of Kampats, from the revisionist, He informed the revisionist that the 'Kampats' had been purchased by him as sample for being sent for analys...
M/S. Ram Singh and Sons Engineering Works and anr. Vs. State of Uttar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)138
D. M. Chandrashekhar, J. - In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are common. They have impugned two notices issued under S. 22, of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) calling upon the petitioners to show cause why the orders of assessment of the petitioners to Sales Tax for the years 1969-70 and 1970-71 should not be rectified.2. In the original assessments for the aforesaid two years the Sales Tax Officer had treated certain transactions of the petitioners as amounting to works contract and hence not assessable to Sales Tax. In the impugned notices the Sales Tax Officer has proposed to treat the aforesaid transactions as assessable to Sales Tax.3. In the assessment of the petitioners for the year 1965-66 certain transactions of the petitioner were claimed as amounting to works contract and hence not assessable to Sales Tax, but Sales Tax Officer had rejected that claim and treated those transactions as amounting to sale...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›