Allahabad Court May 1981 Judgments
Shubhwant Rai JaIn and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ725
K.N. Goyal, J.1. The petitioner 1 has been detained Under Section 3, Sub-section (2) read with Sub-section (3, of the National Security Act, 1980, by an order of the District Magistrate, Lucknow dated 7-5-1981. The order recites that the action has been taken with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. Petitioner 2 is his wife and has filed the petition on his behalf.2. The grounds supplied to him are, in substance, as follows: During 1979-80 he was serving as Chief Medical Officer, Azamgarh. While so acting he committed certain acts of criminal misconduct and criminal conspiracy in relation to the purchase of essential life saving drugs. No medicines were purchased for the control of leprosy as was required. Bogus purchases were made and proper medicines were not purchased, with the result that many people who could have been saved died of jaundice between March and July 1980. He also put G...
Tag this Judgment!Mushtaq Ahmad Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1185
B.N. Katju, J.1. This is a petition filed on behalf of Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.2. It appears that an order under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act hereinafter referred to as the Act, was passed by the State Government against Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and he was arrested on 23-10-1980 in compliance with the aforesaid order and the grounds of detention were served on him on that very day. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan made a representation against the aforesaid order on 12-11-1980 and prayed that the copies of the statements on which the grounds of detention were based and the recovery list (Panchnama) be supplied to him. The statements on which the grounds of detention were based were served on him on 13-11-1980. The representation of Mushtaq Ahmad Khan was rejected by the State Government on 24-11-1980 and the grounds of detention and the representation of Mushtaq Ahmad Khan were placed before the Adv...
Tag this Judgment!Naushe Ali Khan Vs. Mohammad Siddiq and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All307
S.J. Hyder, J.1. Plaintiff's suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant respondents 1 and 2 to restore the accommodation in dispute to its original condition within three months of the date of the decree and in the alternative allowing the plaintiff to reconstruct the house at a cost not exceeding Rs. 1000/- was decreed by the primary court. On appeal preferred by the defendant respondents 1 and 2 the Court of first appeal, hereinafter referred to as the court of appeal, set aside the decree and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.2. The facts found by the two courts below may now be stated. The property in dispute is a house. It was declared as evacuee property and vested in the Custodian who allotted the same to the appellant by his order dated 6-11-1950 on payment of Rupees 8/- p. m. as rent. The house was subsequently auctioned and was purchased by Laiq Ahmad defendant respondent 3. An order granting formal possession to Laid Ahmad was issued by the competent officer on ...
Tag this Judgment!Jupitar Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dwarka Diesh Dayal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All251
ORDERR.R. Rastogi, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred against an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur on 22-6-1977 dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff-applicant with costs. The brief facts are these :The plaintiff-applicant, Jupitar Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. is a private limited company and Yugal Kishore Mansarmani is its Managing Director. The applicant ran a chit fund scheme and defendant-opposite party No. 1 joined that scheme on 11-4-1966 and was allotted Chit No. 30, the value being Rs. 10,000/-. The defendant No. 1 was paid Rupees 6,000/- after deducting Rs. 4,000/- on account of discount and the amount was repayable in monthly instalments of Rs. 200/- each. Defendants 2 to 4 were sureties and on 19-4-1966 parties entered into an agreement, one of the clauses of which provided for arbitration in the event of any difference arising between the parties. Sri Sheo She-khar Dikshit was named as the sole arbitrator. This...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Rehan Raza Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All256
K.N. Seth, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff appellant for declaration that property No. W. D. 15/125 to 127 called Razvi Manzil situate in Mohalla Behariour, Bareilly, is a waqf property and is not liable to be transferred by the defendants as property of the evacuees.2. The case set up by the plaintiff was that under the waqfnama dated 26-9-1931 executed by Smt. Abbasi Begum a waqf was created in respect of the property in dispute. The Mut-walli appointed under the waqf deed and the members of his family migrated to Pakistan and the management of the property has been taken over by defendant No. 5. Under the mistaken belief that since all the beneficiaries have migrated to Pakistan defendant No. 5 intends to sell the property as evacuee property belonging exclusive-ly to the evacuees. The plaintiff claimed that he was the ultimate beneficiary under the waqf and the property could not be said disregarding the waqf and the ultimate benefit of the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Jawahar Lal Jaiswal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All292
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. Two principal questions of law require consideration by this Full Bench. The first is whether the restriction imposed by the Excise Commissioner that all excise shops shall, with effect from December 20, 1980, remain closed on Friday also, will apply to the pre-existing licensees of excise shops. The second question is whether the variation of the strength of liquor is valid.2. We shall take up the question of Friday closure first. The wholesale and retail sale of liquor and other excisable articles is generally permitted by auctioning shops of various places to the highest bidder. This is an auction system of sale of excise shops.3. Previously, according to paragraphs 351 and 352 of the U. P. Excise Manual, the excise shops could ,be kept open till 10 P. M. On September 18, 1977, notifications were issued amending these rules and directing that the licensees of excise shops shall keep their shops open till 8 P. M. only. Thus, the business hours were reduced by t...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1083
K. N. Singh, J.1. The District Magistrate, Ballia, issued a notice to the petitioner on 10-10-1979 under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 directing; him to appear before him on 12-11-1978 at 10 A.M, and to give his explanation in writing as to why an order should not be passed against him under Section 3 of the Act. The petitioner instead of appearing before the District Magistrate filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court challenging validity of the notice. While issuing notice of the writ petition to the respondents, a Division Bench of this Court observed that the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Harsh Narain v. District Magistrate 1972 All LJ 762 relied on by the counsel for the petitioner in assailing the validity of the notice required reconsideration in view of . the Supreme Cpurt decision in State of Gujarat v. Mehbub Khan AIR 1968 SC 1468 : 1969 Cri LJ 26. In this view the Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Saraswati Devi Vs. B.C. Kundu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All259
ORDERR.R. Rastogi, J.1. This is plaintiff's revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The brief facts are these. The plaintiff Smt. Champa Devi (who died during the pendency of the suit) and Smt. Saraswati Devi were owners of house No. 26-D Charu Chandra Mitra Road, Allahabad and the defendant opposite party was a tenant of a portion of it on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. The defendant committed default in payment of rent and after terminating his tenancy the plaintiff filed a suit for his eviction and for arrears of rent and damages. Ad litem and future interest was also claimed.2. The suit was filed on small causes court side in the court of Judge, Small Causes, Allahabad and a summons was issued to the defendant fixing 26-7-1977 for hearing. That summons was duly served. The defendant appeared on that date and filed written statement and on that very date he also deposited the entire amount of rent along with water tax payable by him till 31-7-1977. He howeve...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Prem Hosiery Stores
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1981
Reported in: [1981]49STC38(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. In compliance with the direction of this Court the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Kanpur Range I, Kanpur, had referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this Court:(1) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Judge (Revisions) was legally justified to hold that mufflers made out of woollen cloth, are woollen cloth and thus exempt from tax ?(2) Whether the woollen mufflers made out of woollen cloth are taxable as woollen goods as per Notification No. ST-3613/X-900(21)-69 as modified by ST-II-332/X-1012-1971 dated 15th November, 1971, at 6 per cent or as hosiery of all kinds other than pure cotton hosiery taxable vide Notification No. ST-3612/X -900(21)-69 dated 1st July, 1969, at 3 per cent at all points of sale ?2. In view of the amendment made in the U.P. Sales Tax Act, this reference was converted into a revision under Sub-section (6-A) of Section 11. It came up for hearing before a learned Judge o...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Indu Tewari Vs. Ram Bahadur Chaudhari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All309
ORDERJ.M.L. Sinha, J.1. This is an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act filed by smt. Indu Tewari, hereinafter called the petitioner. The facts giving rise to the petition can briefly be stated as under:The petitioner purchased a motor vehicle No. U. P. Z. 9529 in the name of her nephew Saroj Kumar, The petitioner wanted to ply the motor vehicle as a public carrier and applied for a permit for the same in respect of Etawah-Bhind route in the name of Ram Bahadur Chaudhary, opposite party as he already possessed a driving licence in his name. With that end in view she also sot the name of the opposite party entered in the relevant papers as registered owner. Thereafter some differences cropped up between the parties. It is not necessary to mention in detail the facts relating to those differences. It should suffice to state that in the year 1979 the petitioner filed a suit in the court of the Civil Judge Etawah for injunction to restrain the opposite party from inte...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »