Allahabad Court January 1981 Judgments
Gaon Sabha Vs. Kushal Pal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All176
T.S. Misra, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demanding or realising the balance of the contract money as arrears of land revenue or in any manner whatsoever,2. The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows:On 28th March, 1966 the right to lift and take out sand from the bed of river Jamuna in village Jakhan Tahsil and District Etawah was auctioned by the Tehsildar, Etawah, defendant No. 2, on behalf of Gaon Sabha Jakhan, defendant No. 1. The terms of the auction sale were that the Theka would be given to the bidder whose bid was accepted by the S. D. O. Etawah. defendant No. 3 and such bidder would have to execute an agreement in favour of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff made the highest bid of Rs. 16,000/- and deposited one-fourth amount thereof in Tehsil Etawah in favour of defendant No. 1. The acceptance of the bid was not communicated to the plaintiff whereupon he sent a letter dated 14th May, 1966 in that conne...
Tag this Judgment!Kallan Vs. the District Judge, Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All168
ORDERS.D. Agarwala, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arising out of proceedings in Suit No. 633 of 1977 filed by opposite party No. 3 against the petitioner for ejectment and arrears of rent and damages. The premises in dispute is 16/11 Colvin Road, Allahabad. The case of opposite party No. 3 landlord was that the petitioner was a tenant in the premises in dispute at the rate of Rs. 40 per mensem and since he did not pay the rent in spite of a notice of demand he was a defaulter in the eye of law. The suit was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the rate of rent was Rs. 150 per mensem and not Rs. 40 as alleged by the landlord. It was also contended that opposite party No. 3 was not the owner and landlord of the disputed premises and Sri A.K. Agarwal was also the owner of the disputed premises.2. The Judge Small Cause Court held that opposite party No. 3 was the landlord of the premises and the rate of rent was Rs. 40 per mensem. It was, therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Majid and ors. Vs. Munafait and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All167
ORDERK.P. Singh, J.1. This writ petition is against the judgment of Sri M.C. Sharma, I.A.S. Member, Board of Revenue dated 28-12-1978 and arises out of proceedings under the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act.2. It is well known that no writ petition lies against the order of the Board of Revenue where the only question involved is as to who should be entered in the revenue records.3. In this connection it is necessary to quote the following observation of a Division Bench of this Court made in 1956 All LJ 807 (1): (AIR 1'957 AH 205) Jaipal v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad:'......It has, however, been the consistent practice of this Court not to interfere with orders made by the Board of Revenue in cases in which the only question at issue is whether the name of the petitioner be entered in the record of rights. That record is primarily maintained for revenue purposes and an entry therein has reference only to possession. Such an entry does not ordinarily confer upon the person in ...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam Lal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1187
V. N. Varma, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of Sri. M. P. S. Tomar, Additional Sessions Judge, Etah by which he convicted the appellant (Gautam Lai) under Sections 302 and 307, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life on each court.2. Two persons lost their lives in this case, they were Sri. P. N. Mishra and Hari Singh. At the relevant time (21-10-1977) Sri. D. N. Mishra was S. O. Government Railway Police, Kasganj. On 21-10-1977, 14 Down on its run from Mathura to Lucknow arrived at Kasganj Railway Station at about 10.40 P. M. Soon after the train arrived at Kasganj Railway Station, Sri. D. N'. Mishra along with constable Chandra Prakash Tewari. P. W. 22 started checking it with a view to find out whether or not it was proper-? escorted by the Railway Police Security Force. He found two rakshaks, namely Bhole Prasad and N. P. Mflthew on 1?he platform towards the front par of the train. He talked to them and learnt that two rakshaks more were in ...
Tag this Judgment!Udaiveer Singh Vs. D.M. Farrukhabad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All244
M.N. Shukla, J.1. The petitioner held a licence for SBBL gun. A notice dated 20-7-1972 was served on him to show cause why his licence may not be cancelled on the ground that he was involved in proceedings under Section 107/ 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is true that such proceedings were commenced against the petitioner but the most important fact to be noticed is that the parties to that case entered into a compromise and in pursuance thereof the proceedings were dropped by an order dated 3-2-1973 filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. The order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned. He recorded a categorical finding -- 'I am satisfied that there is no apprehension of breach of peace. The notice against the opposite parties is withdrawn and they are let off.' Still, however, the District Magistrate by his order dated 17-9-1973 cancelled the licence of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal on 17-12-1973 which was dismissed by the appellate authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Nanhey Khan Vs. Lala Bhagwan Dass and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1982All75
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. This is a judgment-debtor's second appeal arising out of an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by him after the sale of three plots of land, Nos. 1134, 1136 and 11.2. The objection was that although the decree-holder had applied for attachment before judgment of all the three plots, only plot No. 11 had been attached and that the other two plots were not attached before their sale in execution proceedings taken by the decree-holder after passing of the decree.The other objections were that the notice under Order 21, Rule 66 was not properly served and that the sale proclamation was not properly drawn.3. The executing court dismissed the objection as not maintainable under Section 47 of the Code of Civil procedure after the confirmation of the sale without any objection having been taken under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lower appellate court took the same view and dismissed the appeal.4. Having heard learned cou...
Tag this Judgment!Kesar Singh Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ488
ORDERMurlidhar, J.1. Rvisonnist Kesar Singh has been convicted under Section 7/16 Prevention of food Adulteration Act and sentenced to R.I for three months and a fine of Rs. 1000/'- in default further R. I. for one month,2. The prosecution case was that on 12-1-1976, at about 1.00 p.m., he was found exposing for sale in his Parchun shop in Naugarh, District Varanasi adulterated Haldi. It was alleged that the sample of Haldi obtained by the food inspector was found coloured with the prohibited coal tar dye lead chromate. Both the Courts below have found the accused to be guilty.3. In revision the learned Counsel for the revisionist pressed two points. It was alleged that the independent witness Vishwanath P. W. 4 had not supported the prosecution and therefore, there had been a breach of Section 10(7) of the Act. This contention is without any weight. Section 10(7) only obliges the food inspector to call one or more independent witnesses while taking a sample. This was done. That this i...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Chandra Tewari and ors. Vs. the Board of High School and Interm ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All144
M.N. Shukla, J.1. Thirteen petitioners have joined together and filed this writ petition challenging the action taken by the respondent and have prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent to announce the results of the petitioners. After the petition was presented the respondent was directed to produce in this Court the answer books of the petitioners for our perusal. Accordingly the answer books were produced in Court when the hearing commenced today. The learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that the cases of the petitioners were different from each other, the adverse action taken against each of them furnished a distinct cause of action and hence a single petition on behalf of them was not competent. It is not disputed that they were all aggrieved by a single order which was in the shape of a composite order with a schedule, mentioning each one of them by name and indicating the action taken against them, namely, withholding of the result for the High School ex...
Tag this Judgment!Balram Lal Srivastava Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ944
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. Twenty bags of rice weighing 171/2 quintals were seized from the possession of Balram Lal of village Madhopur, Police Station Chandauli, District Varanasi by the Station Officer. He lodged a report with the Collector under Section 3/7 of the Essential Com-rnodities Act. The case set up was that the rice, which had been seized, belonged to the Fair Price Shop of Gopal Krishna Srivastava son of Balram Lal and that Balram Lal was taking the rice for selling it in the black-market. It is also alleged that when asked to show his records Gopal Krishna refused to show his stock Register. It was therefore, prayed that permission, be granted for sale of the rice seized by the police. A show cause notice was issued to Balram Lal. He set up a case that he was a farmer and that the rice belonged to him. He was taking the rice for sale in order to earn money for meeting the marriage expenses of his son Kamla Kant Srivastava, which was to take place on 12th May, 1980. He was t...
Tag this Judgment!Munna Lal and Sons Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC190(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. These two revisions under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereafter 'the Act') have been filed by M/s. Munna Lal and Sons, Amroha, a registered firm (hereafter 'the assessee'). The assessment years involved are 1971-72 and 1972-73. The assessee carried on business in manufacture and sale of bricks and ran a brick kiln in village Kuri. It also carried on business in manufacture and sale of sugar and had a crusher in village Bahadurpur. For the aforesaid two years the accounts of the assessee and the disclosed turnover were not accepted by the assessing authority mainly on the basis of survey made on 30th April, 1973, of the assessee's kiln. According to the department at the time of that survey the assessee's chowkidar Allahdiya was present and a number of documents relating to the assessment years under consideration were found and after examining them they were given back to Allahdiya. The assessee disputed that in fact any such survey had been made or any ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »