Allahabad Court September 1981 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.
Deewan Chand Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ720
P.N. Goel, J.1. Deewan Chand appellant, a booking clerk at Laksar railway station, Northern Railway, in the year 1964 has been convicted Under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 3 years by an order dated 30-3-1979, passed by Special Judge Anti-Corruption, West U. P. Lucknow.2. The case of the prosecution very briefly stated was: There were three booking clerks at Laksar railway station. They used to work in three shifts or 8 hours each. In case the card-board tickets were not available, the booking clerks could issue paper tickets. There used to be books of blank paper tickets. There are 3 foils of each blank paper ticket. In one book there are 50 sets of blank paper tickets. The books which were issued for the railway stations of the Northern Railway are called local blank paper tickets. The tickets which are issued for railway stations on the Railways other than Northern Railway are called foreign blank...
Maheshwari Prasad and ors. Vs. Munni Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All438
B.N. Sapru, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and is directed against an order of the lower appellate court whereby it dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for grant of a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' right to draw water from thewell in suit commonly known as 'Raja Kunwa' situate in Mohalla Thatharaee Bazar, Banda City within the Municipal Limits.2. The plaintiffs' allegations were that the plaintiffs were the residents of the said Mohalla in Banda city and the well was the only well situated in the Mohalla and that the plaintiffs as well as their predecessors-in-interest had been drawing water from the said well. It was alleged that one month before the institution of the suit the private defendants declared that they would get the well filled up and raise constructions over it on the ground that they had obtained the well from the Government for making constructions over it. It was also asserted that from the time immemorial the resi...
Smt. Pramod Saraswat Vs. Sri Ashok Kumar Saraswat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All441
ORDERDeoki Nandan, J. 1. This revision application under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. is directed against an order dated 30th May, 1981, of the Court of the 1st Additional District Judge, Allahabad refusing the applicant's prayer for examining three of the witnesses on commission, in the course of the trial of a divorce petition. The wife is the applicant in this Court and the opposite party husband is the petitioner for divorce of the District Court. The ground on which the application for examination of the witnesses on commission was made is that these witnesses reside at Dehradun which is a place more than 500 KM away from Allahabad, the place where the petition for divorce between the parties is being tried. Rule 19 of Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides. 'No one shall be offered to attend in person to give evidence unless he resides. (a) within the local limits of the Court's original jurisdiction, or (b) without such limits but at a place less than one hundred o...
Chhidda Lal Vs. Bal Swarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1705
P.N. Goel, J.1. Decision of this appeal preferred by Chhidda Lal against the order dated 30-7-1979 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 1978 acquitting respondent Bal Swarup, real brother of the appellant of an offence punishable under Section 448, I.P.C. depends upon an interpretation of Section 441, I.P.C. as amended in the year 1961' in the State of Uttar Pradesh.2. Section 441, I.P.C. defines 'Criminal Trespass'. After the amendment of the year 1961, Section 441 runs into two paragraphs which are reproduced below:1. Whoever enters into or upon property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or, having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence,2. or having entered into or upon such property, whether before or aft...
Raj NaraIn Singh Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1495
ORDERR.B. Lal, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the orders dated 6-6-81 and 8-7-81 passed by the Corporation Magistrate, Varanasi and the First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Varanasi, respectively.2. Shyam Lai Shah opposite party No. 3 is a dealer in edible oils at Varanasi. On 13-3-1980 the Food Inspector of the area accompanied by some higher authorities, raided the shop and godown of opposite party No. 3 and found mustard oil of different qualities and 45 tins of soyabean oil, and seized and sealed the same under Section 10(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly the Act). Samples of these oils were also taken and sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and report. The sample of soyabean oil was found to conform to the prescribed standard. This sample was also got analysed by the Public Analyst at Chandigarh and he also reported that the sample conformed to the prescribed standard.3. The mustard oil sample was not found to co...
Vishnu Prasad Vs. State of Utter Pardesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1489
P.N. Goel, J.1. Vishnu Prasad appellant, Head constable police out post Runkata, police station Achhnera, District Agra has been convicted and sentenced under Sections IGIjJHAjJL-P. C. and 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 to undergo R. I. for 2 years, 1 year and 2 years respectively. The sentences of imprisonment have been made to run concurrently.2. Komal Prasad constable police out post Runkata was tried with the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 225, I.P.C. He has been acquitted in the case,3. Beni with his wife Smt. Kailash Pati (P. W. 1) used to live in village Rai-pura Ahir within police Station Achhnera. There was enmity between Beni and Gajodhar of village Raipura Ahir. Gajodhar was in collusion with the police and used to implicate Beni in false cases. The police, therefore, used to send him to jail. On this account Beni left his village and began to work as labourer in the city of Agra. In the early morning on or about 1-5-1977 the Head constable along ...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Anchor Pressing (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(All)447; [1982]136ITR505(All)
Rastogi, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the decision in Calcutta Chromotype Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO : [1971]80ITR627(Cal) applicable to the case of the assessee and in confirming the cancellation of penalty ordered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?'2. The brief facts are these, M/s. Anchor Pressing (P.) Ltd., Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), should have filed its return for the assessment year 1968-69 under Section 5(1) of the C. (P.) S. T. Act, 1964 (hereinafter 'the Act'), on or before 30th September, 1968. The returnwas, however, filed on September 26, 1972, but before the assessment was made. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings for the delay in the filing of the return and issued a show-cause notice under Section 10 of the Act. Pursuant to the notic...
Dr. Ram Baj Singh Vs. Babulal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1981
Reported in: AIR1982All285
S.J. Hyder, J. 1. The plaintiff-appellant has been denied the relief sought by him on the ground that brick grinding machine of the defendant did not cause any substantial injury or special damage to the plaintiff. Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff has argued before me that the two courts below have not correctly appreciated the meaning of the expressions 'substantial injury' and 'special damgage,' as used in law. 2. The plaintiff-appellant commenced the action giving rise to this second appeal for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant-respondent from running his brick-grinding machine. 3. It is not in controversy between the parties that the plaintiff is a Medical Practitioner. He has built a consulting chamber before the brick-grinding machine was erected by the defendant-respondent. There is a controversy between the parlies as to whether the consulting chamber was established by the plaintiff in the year 1962 or in the year 1965. I shall refer to this controversy...
Satish Kumar Rao and ors. Vs. Gorakhpur University
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All377
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. These 13 petitioners in this petition have sought Mandamus directing the Gorakhpur University to allow them to appear at the 5th semester examination of LL. B. Part III conducted by the said University and to declare their results.2. The petitioners joined LL. B. course of the Gorakhpur University in Sant Vinoba Degree College, Deoria, which was affiliated to the Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur. They appeared at the LL. B, Part I examination of the Gorakhpur University in 1977. On the declaration of the result, petitioners 1 to 11 were found to have failed while petitioners 12 and 13 were found eligible to appear at the supplementary examination in one of the papers. Petitioners 1 to 11 claimed that a joint application was filed by them to the Registrar, Gorakhpur University, for revaluation of their answer books ofthe subjects in which they had failed. Petitioners 12 and 13 appeared at the supplementary examination. The petitioners' assertion made in the writ petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›