Allahabad Court May 1979 Judgments
Rahmat Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ581
ORDERMahavir Singh, J.1. This is a revision by the applicant Rahmat against the dismissal of his appeal against his conviction under Section 395, I. P. C. and sentence of four and half years' R. I.2. The prosecution case was that a dacoity was committed in the night of 12/13th July, 1974 at the houses of Ram Deo (P. W. 1) Gokul (P. W. 2) Shobhan and Ghasitey in village Chamarpurwa, hamlet of village Malhi P.S. Malhipur, District Behraich, Households and ornaments worth Rs. 4,180 were said to have been looted away in the said dacoity. The dacoits were said to be 12-13 in number of them three namely, the applicant and two others, namely Avadhey and Chhotey were identified and they were named in the F. I. R. About the rest it was alleged that their faces were seen in the light of torches and the burning light of khar and an opportunity was given to them to identify them.3. The applicant had denied the charge. He alleged that as the Station Officer, Mallhipur was against him he got him imp...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. S. Mohinder Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All342
Mithal, J.1. This is a Civil Revision converted from an appeal directed against the order of the Civil Judge, Roorkee at Saharanpur by which he allowed the application by the respondent-applicant moved under Sections 5, 8, 12 and 13 of the Indian Arbitration Act under Section 5 and has appointed one Sri Hukum Singh, retired Chief Engineer of the Punjab P.W.D. as an Arbitrator in his place. The Union of India has come up in appeal.2. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent applicant that an appeal does not lie against the order purporting to be under Section 5 of the Arbitration Act. Section 5 of the Arbitration Act reads as under:'The authority of an appointed arbitrator or umpire shall not be revocable except with the leave of the court, unless a contrary intention is expressed in the arbitration agreement.'3. Section 39 of the Act provides for appeals and it reads as under:Section 39(1). An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act (and fr...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Yashoda Devi and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All287
H.N. Seth, J.1. This appeal under Section 82-F of the Indian Railways Act by Smt. Yasoda Devi, Suni Kumar and Oudesh Kumar is directed against an order dated 15-3-75, passed by Claims Commissioner, Moradabad dismissing their claim for compensation.2. The claimants Smt. Yashoda Devi, Sunil Kumar and Oudesh Kumar are the widow and minor sons of late Sri Ram, Boiler Loco running shed, Luck-now who along with his daughter Ku-mari Kunwari Devi, lost his life in a railway accident that took place on the night intervening 20/21-2-74 at Kathghar near Moradabad Junction.3. According to the claimants, on 16-2-74, Sri Ram and his daughter Km. Kunwari Devi, aged about 16 1/2 years had gone to Haridwar to have a dip in Ganges on the occasion of Maha Shiv-ratri which fell on 19-2-74, both of them were returning by 66 DN. Vara-nasi Janta Express train which collided with a stationary goods train at Kathghar near, Moradabad. As a result of this accident, both Sri Ram and Km. Kunwari Devi were killed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Industries Ltd. (Steel Section) Modi Nagar Vs. U.P. State Electri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All375
K.N. Seth, J.1. In these petitions filed by the consumers of electrical energy supplied by the U. P. State Electricity Board the main question involved is whether the U. P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) has power or authority to demand from the petitioners any additional amount of security deposit on the basis of its letter dated 9th Dec., 1975.2. The petitioners entered into separate but identical agreements with the Board for supply of electrical energy for industrial purposes. For sake of convenient reference to facts necessary for the decision of the question involved, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 515 of 1976 filed by Modi Industries Ltd., (Steel Section) is made the leading case.3. The Board contracted with the petitioner company to supply 9,500 KW electrical energy. The Rate Schedule applicable to the petitioner was HV-2. A deed of agreement was executed on 31st Dec., 1970. Under the agreement the petitioner company deposited with the Board a sum...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Lal Vs. Reoti Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All365
Deoki Nandan, J.1. There is no merit in this execution second appeal by thejudgment-debtor.2. The only objection raised by the judgment-debtor was that he was adjudged an insolvent with effect from 30th Oct., 1965, but the sale took place on 8th Jan., 1966, in execution of the decree against him without any notice to the official receiver. It, however, appears from the judgment of the lower appellate Court that the official receiver moved an application dated 3rd March, 1966, before the executing Court, saying that the sale had been for a reasonable price, therefore, he had no objection to the same and that money realised from the sale should be sent to the Insolvency Court for distribution among the creditors.3. Learned counsel contended that the sale was wholly null and void. That is not so. All that Section 51(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act declares is that where execution of a decree is issued against the property of judgment-debtor no person shall be entitled to the benefit o...
Tag this Judgment!Mahfooz Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Mohammed Ahsan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All5
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit for pre-emption. The trial court decreed the suit but the lower appellate court dismissed it on the grounds, firstly that the law of pre-emption entitling a Shafi Khalit to pre-empt the sale of property on which he exercised certain rights of easement, is void for placing an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to property guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution; and secondly on the ground that the first demand, Talab Mowasibat required to be made by Mohammedan Law, immediately on comming to know of the completion of the sale had in the present case been made before the completion of the sale, and was, therefore, invalid. Mr. Banarsi Das, learned counsel for the appellants has questioned the correctness of the decision of the lower appellate court on both the said grounds.2. The decision of the lower appellate court on the first point is based on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Jagdish Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Man Singh Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1433
ORDERM.P. Saxena, J.1. Man Singh was convicted by the Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bulandshahr, under Sections 447 and 434, Indian P.C. and was sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 100/- under the first count and to two months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 200/-under the second count. It was further ordered that Har Prasad Sharma complainant will be delivered possession over the property from which he was wrongfully dispossessed by Man Singh. This order was passed under Section 456, Criminal P.C. of the new Code. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, maintained the conviction under both the counts but reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of its payment td one month's rigorous imprisonment under Section 447, Indian P.C. and to a fine of Rs. 300/-and in default of its payment to two months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 434, Indian P.C. The order passed under Section 456, Criminal P.C. does not...
Tag this Judgment!Sakal Singh and ors. Vs. Smt. Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All274
R.B. Misra, J.1. The present review application is directed against the order of D.D. Seth, J. (as he then was) dated 27th August, 1976.2. It appears that Sakal Singh and five others filed a suit for declaration that they were either the bhumidhars or sirdars of the disputed plots against the applicants, Smt. Devi and Smt. Dharma, the suit was contested by the applicants on the ground that they were the bhumidhars in possession. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed a second appeal before this Court, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 4th August, 1967. Smt. Devi and Smt. Dharma, the applicants, later on, filed the present review application on 23rd August, 1967. The review application came up for admission before the same learned Judge on 24th October, 1967, who directed for the issue of notice. During the pendency of the review application, the village where the plots in dispu...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Sharma Vs. Shital Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All345
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of a suit filed by Shital Prasad, the plaintiff, for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment of the defendant Shri Krishan. During the pendency of the suit, Shital Prasad sold the house to Babu Lal Jain. An application was filed for the impleadment of Babu Lal Jain.2. An objection was raised to the maintainability of the suit on behalf of the defendant on the ground that as the plaintiff had sold the property to Babu Lal Jain on 14-1-1969, he was not entitled to get the decree. The objection was overruled on the ground that by the transfer of the house Shital Prasad, the plaintiff, did not lose interest in the property. The suit was decreed for the recovery of arrears of rent, but was dismissed for the relief of ejectment. Shital Prasad filed an appeal. His appeal was accepted, and the decree for ejectment was also granted in his favour. Aggrieved, Sri Krishan, the defendant, filed the present Second Appeal.3. After filing the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chandrawati Devi and anr. Vs. Surendra Pal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All406
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 3500/- with pendente lite and future interest thereon. 2. The plaintiffs' case was as follows : The defendant-respondent's grandfather Kunwar Madho Singh was the Zamindar of Village Bankner. He had plotted out some of his land and disposed of all the plots on 99 years lease to different persons. The defendant-respondent came to be the owner of the said property on the death of Kunwar Madho Singh as his heir and legal representative. The defendant-respondent assured the plaintiff-appellants that plot No. 12 of the said plots in village Bankner was in his possession as proprietor, in as much as on account of the breach of the terms of the lease originally granted to one Piyarey Lal, the defendant-respondent's ancestor had resumed his possession over the plot. The plot was not inhabited and believing the assurance given by the defendant-respondent that he had the right to transfer the same, the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »