Allahabad Court March 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.
State Electricity Board, U.P. Banda Vs. Prakash Talkies
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All460
Yashoda Nandan, J. 1. This appeal by the State Electricity Board, Uttar Pradesh, which is a licensee within the meaning of Section 26 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge in a writ petition filed by respondent, Prakash Talkies.2. The respondent runs a cinema house styled as Prakash Talkies, Banda. It had obtained electric connections for light and fans as well as for industrial power. The industrial power connection had been obtained for running the motor for the projector and metal rectifier. Officials of the vigilance department of the appellant visited the respondent's [premises and discovered that electrical energy supplied for the industrial power connection was being utilised for feeding a dynamo and a motor which generated D. C. Energy which, in turn, was used for running D. C. fans in the respondent's premises. The appellant Board took the view that since the respondent was using the energy supplied by it for running fa...
Chandra Deo Pandey and anr. Vs. Sheo Das Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All319
R.M. Sahai, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for cancellation of the compromise decree dated 22nd September 1962 in suit No. 403 of 1956 Rajeshwar Pandey and Ors. v. Chandradeo Pandey and Ors.2. The facts giving rise to this second appeal are simple but interesting. Series of litigation have been fought out between the parties ranging over 25 years without any decision on merits. Normally compromise is adjustment as a result of reciprocal feeling to bury the differences but this is a peculiar case where anxiety to adjust has been off set thrice.3. A suit for declaration of tenancy right filed under Section 59/61 of the U. P. Tenancy Act was compromised as early as 17th January 1952. An application to set aside the compromise failed and the order was maintained up to the Board of Revenue. Not satisfied with the orders of the revenue courts a civil suit No. 603 of 1957 was filed before Munsif Ballia. Strange as it may appear but this suit,also, was compromised...
Babulal Jiwanram and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1977
Reported in: [1977]110ITR122(All)
Chandrashekhar, J. 1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated October 20, 1974', passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'). 2. The petitioner, M/s. Babulal Jiwan Ram & Co., had been assessed to wealth-tax. The Wealth-tax Officer had levied a penalty on it for late submission of its return. It (the petitioner) had made an application to the Commissioner for waiving such penalty. The Commissioner had issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner. Therein he stated that after scrutiny of the records he observed that the wealth which had been assessed in the name of the Hindu undivided family, M/s. Babulal Jiwan Ram, also belonged to the petitioner-Hindu undivided family consisting of same coparceners and that hence the returns filed by the petitioner were not complete and were not also in good faith. The petitioner was called upon to give its explanation and was afforded an opp...
Sohan Lal Burman Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1322
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The petitioner has by this petition challenged an order Under Section 145 Cr. P.C. as also an order of attachment Under Section 146(1) of the same code. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent that the petition abated in view of Section 58 of the Constitution 42nd (Amendment) Act. 1976.2. Section 58(1) of the Constitution 42nd (Amendment) Act provides that pending petitions and interim orders made thereon should be dealt with in accordance with the Provisions of Article 226 as substituted by Section 38 of the Amending Act. Sub-section (2) provides that petitions which would not have been admitted by the High Court under the provisions of Article 226 as substituted by Section 38 aforesaid, shall abate and any interim order made thereon shall stand vacated. Article 226(3) of the Constitution as now stands, bars a petition for redress of any injury referred to in Sub-clause (b) and (c) of Clause (1) of Article 226, if any other remedy for such redress ...
Rajpat and ors. Vs. Jagannath Misra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All558
M.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This is the defendant's Second Appeal. Both the courts below have concurrently decreed the plaintiff's suit. The brief facts are reproduced from the following passage from the judgment of the lower appellate court.2. Jagannath respondent filed the suit with the allegation that the following pedigree will be helpful in following the case:-- JOKHU MISRA _______________________________________|________________________________________ | | Ram Anand Mussase _______|___________________________________________________________________ | | | | | Mst. Nimra Mst. Patiraji Ghora Roo Jagannath Baijanath | | Ram Karan Ram BahalAmongst the descendants of Jokhu only plaintiff and his two sister's sons Ram Bahal and Ham Karan are now alive. The plaintiff is now the full owner of entire property of Jokhu's branch. The plaintiff is old and so several persons are keen to take away his property. The plaintiff does not want to give his properties to any person in his lifetime and except ...
Naresh Chand Agrawal Vs. Om Prakash Agrawal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All416
ORDERM.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This revision is directed against an order which was passed in a suit between the ex-partners of a dissolved partnership firm for accounting. One Om Prakash Agrawal has filed the suit against Fateh Chand claiming that there was a partnership firm between them in the name of M/s. Fateh Chand & Sons and the same had been dissolved by a notice given by the defendant to the paintiff before the institution of the suit. The said firm was said to have carried on business at Indra Mill Compound, Jeoni Mandi, Agra. It was alleged that godowns for storing the goods were also taken at Indra Mill Compound, Jeoni Mandi, Agra, Johns Mills No. 2, Jeoni Mandi, Agra and in Nand Bhawan (Old Mahalaxmi Oil Mills) at Jeoni Mandi, Agra and at other places. It was further alleged that the partnership firm also opened a retail shop in the name of M/s. Joint Trade Corporation at Shyam Market Jeoni Mandi, Agra. It seems when the suit was filed, the plaintiff moved an application for the...
Ram Prakash Vs. Moolchand Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All556
T.S. Misra, J.1. This appeal by the defendant arises out of a suit filed by the respondent Kunwar Rudra Pra-tap Singh under Rule 103 of Order 21. C. P. C.2. Briefly, the facts leading to this appeal are these: The plaintiff Kr. Rudra Pratap Singh purchased Kothi No. 16, Qaiserbagh Palace, Luckriow in the auction sale held in execution proceedings No. 77 of 1956 of the Court of Civil Judge, Luck-now. Lal Chand Pratap Singh was the erstwhile owner of that property. The northern portion of that Kothi was in possession of the defendant-appellant. The plaintiff applied to the court under Rule 95 of Order 21, C. P. C. for possession of the property and the possession of the property was accordingly delivered to him. While doing so the defendant was dispossessed from the said portion of' the property. He, therefore, moved an application under Rule 100 of Order 21. C. P. C., for being put back to possession. The learned Civil Judge allowed that application on 12th Sept., 1964 for delivery of p...
Chandra Kanta Devi and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All270
Satish Chandra, J. 1. On February 7, 1977, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order: 'By this writ petition under Article 226of the Constitution, the petitioners seek to challenge the validity of the U. P. Ordinance No. 14 of 1976, which hassince been replaced by an Act, on the ground that it contravenes Article 29 and other provisions of the Constituion. Art. 228A(3) of the Constitution provides that the minimum number of Judges who shall sit for the purpose of determining any question as to the constitutional validity of any State law has to be five. Even if we are not inclined to accept the argument of the petitioners, it will not be possible for us to reject the writ petition, as it would amount to determination or a question on constitutional validity of the Ordinance. The object of placing a writ petition for admission obviously cannot be to compel the Division Bench to admit the writ petition whether it agrees with the arguments advanced by the petitioner or no...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›