Allahabad Court July 1984 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.
Rama Devi and anr. Vs. Ram Prakash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1984
Reported in: AIR1985All17
M. Wahajuddin, J. 1. Respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit against the appellants for their ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profit. The suit was filed on the allegation that the defendants were wilful defaulters and a combined notice of demand and termination of tenancy has been given and their tenancy stands terminated. 2. Besides other pleas the defendants maintained that any notice was not served upon them so neither they are defaulters nor their tenancy stands terminated. It would appear that a registered notice was sent addressed separately to defendant No. 1, the mother as well as defendant No. 2, the son who were co-tenants at Varanasi address on 4-8-1970. On the two notices there is an endorsement of the postman dated 8-8-1970 that the addressee refused to accept the notice, and the service was claimed by denial. The stand of the defendants was that defendant No. 2 who is employed in Government Cement, Factory Dala, District Mirzapur and ordinarily resides there, had to perf...
Sri Ram Mahadeo Flour and Oil Mills Vs. the Cantonment Board and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1984
Reported in: AIR1984All384
Mehrotra, J.1. In premises Nos. 361 and 368, Harrisganj, Kanpur, petitioner Sri Ram Mahadeo Flour and Oil Mills, a partnership firm, is in occupation. The premises are subjected to house tax and water tax by the Kanpur Cantonment Board under the provisions of the Cantonments Act, 1924. In respect of assessment year 197l-72 the amount initially demanded as house tax and water tax was deposited by the petitioner. Subsequently on July 6, 1972 further amounts were demanded by the Cantonment Board towards house tax and water tax for the same year. The petitioner deposited the amount under protest but assailed the assessment by filing appeals. Similarly, when additional amount as demanded from the petitioner for the year 1972-73. the petitioner deposited the same under protest. These appeals, it appears, came up for disposal before the Prescribed Authority on Oct. 30, 1972. No one was present on behalf of the petitioner so that the Prescribed Authority dismissed the same in default of the pe...
S.K. Agarwal and Company and ors. Vs. Sailesh Chand Agarwal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1984
Reported in: AIR1984All293
ORDERN.N. Sharma, J. 1. This revision is directed against order dated 25-11-1983 recorded by Ist Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur in Original suit No. 314 of 1974 by which the application of revisionists under Order VII Rule 17 C. P. C. was partly allowed and partly rejected. 2. It appears that the suit was filed by Lala Mool Chand Agrawal against M/s. S.K. Agarwal & Company and others for recovery of Rs. 88,551.50 P with interest pendente lite and future on 26-11-1974. After his death, his sons have been substituted as plaintiff. 3. The revisionists and co-defendants are inter-related. It was a case of loan. It was acknowledged on 15-7-1972 and 10-10-1973. 4. The written statements were filed by defendants in two sets. Initially, the written statements contained some admissions which are alleged to have operated to the prejudice of revisionists.So they sought leave to amend successively. They also filed additional written statement and made statement under Order X Rule 2 C. p. C. 5. In ...
The Punjab National Bank Vs. Lalji Tandon
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1984All381
ORDERN.N. Sharma, J. 1. This revision is directed against order dated 14-10-198.1 recorded by Sri Dinesh Chandra, learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Allahabad allowing the application for amendment of plaint in Original Suit No. 8 of 1983, Lalji Tandon v. Punjab National Bank. 2. It appears that plaintiff Sri Lalji Tandon filed the aforesaid suit for :-- i. ejectment of defendant from the premises in dispute: ii. recovery of Rs. 5,000/- for the damages caused to the tenement by defendant; and iii. Rs. 157.27 for damages for use and occupation from 15-3-1983 to 4-4-1983 at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month as originally prayed. 3. Defendant raised an objection against the amendment which was rejected by the impugaed order. 4. I have heard learned counsel fur parties and perused the record. 5. A preliminary objection was raised before me on behalf of plaintiff that the impugned order was not revisable in view of the proviso appended to Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure which r...
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. the Iind Additional District and Sessions J ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1984
Reported in: AIR1984All360
ORDERB.D. Agarwal, J. 1. These connected petitions are being decided by common judgment.2. On September 24, 1954, the State Government issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 declaring a vast area of land in Tehsil Chakiya, district Varanasi, as reserved forest. The notification was published in the gazette dt. Oct. 2, 1954 and proclamation was made as required under Section 6 of the Act. Budhoo, respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 11743 of 1981 filed objection with respect to plot No. 1/21 (3 bighas) situated in village Bojh. The objection filed was after nearly twenty one years' subsequent to the notification aforesaid. On August 11. 1978, the Forest Settlement Officer rejected the objection finding that the objector had failed to establish that the land was held by him under his cultivation at the relevant period. In appeal filed by respondent No. 3 against this order, the Second Additional District Judge, Varanasi came to the finding on May 7, 1981...
Mau Cold Storage and Khandsari Sugar Factory P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Regi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1984
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas37(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. Petitioner No. 1, Mau Cold Storage and Khandsari. Sugar Factory P. Ltd., is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and petitioners. Nos. 2 to 7 are its directors. On October 4, 1984, respondent No. 1, Registrar of Companies, U.P., filed a complaint against the petitioners before respondent No. 2, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur, alleging that Section 220 of the Act places a statutory obligation on the petitioners to file with the Registrar of Companies the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account in the prescribed form duly placed in the annual general meeting of the company, within thirty days of the annual general meeting and, in case no annual general meeting is held, within thirty days of the due date of the annual general meeting. The petitioners were thus required to file, with the Registrar of Companies, the balance-sheet, and the profit and loss account of petitioner No. 1 for the p...
Ram Bahadur Misra Vs. State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1984
Reported in: [1985]58STC80(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It arises from the order of the Assistant Sugar Commissioner, Bareilly, passed under the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961.2. I have heard Sri Sajjad Husain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel. The sole contention of Sri Husain is that the revisional authority has exercised jurisdiction absolutely contrary to law. He submits that tax under the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act can be levied only on the purchase of sugarcane. In the instant case there is no material whatsoever to show that any sugarcane was purchased by the petitioner. His case, from the beginning, is that the petitioner had crushed sugarcane of his own farm and no purchase, throughout the year, was made. I have carefully gone through the record and asked the learned Standing Counsel, time and again, to show what was the proof on record to indicate that any quantity of sugarcane was ever ...
Waqf Masjid PindaIn and ors. Vs. Athar HusaIn Haidri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1985All100
R.C. Deo Sharma, J.1. This is a first appeal from the order dated 18-2-84 passed by the learned Special Judge, Lucknow, exercising the powers as an Additional District Judge. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated thus. There is a waqf under the name and style of Waqf Masjid Pindain having properties attached to the waqf at Lucknow. This includes a mosque and certain shops. The Shia Central Board of Waqfs exercises powers under the UP. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960, and it is alleged on behalf of the appellants that in exercise of powers under the aforesaid Act the Board appointed the appellant No. 3 Sri Mujtaba Husain as utwalli of the Waqf, Since the respondents were said to be interfering in the discharge of duties of the Mutwalli (appellant No. 3) a civil suit was filed in the Court of the Munsif (North) Lucknow praying that the defendants be restrained from interfering in the plaintiff's management of the waqf property and realisation of rent from the tenants. In the me...
N.S.A. Nagar Mahapalika Vs. Ram Gopal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1
V.P. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Sri A.U. Khan, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra on 30-5-1977 whereby he has acquitted the respondent Ram Gopal from the charges under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the ground that in view of the law laid down in M.C.D. v. Gurdial Chandra (1977) 1 F.A.C. 93 non-compliance with the Rules (sic) not only an injustice because the sample sent to Public Analyst was much shorter than what is the prescribed quantity, hence there was infringement of the Rules and the respondent was entitled to acquittal.2. Sri B.N. Upadhya, brief-holder of Sri N.C. Upadhya, Advocate, has argued this appeal before me.3. So far as back in the year 1975 the Supreme Court in the case of Rajal Dass G. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra : 1975CriLJ254 was of the view that if the Public Analyst did not have the requisite quantity mentioned in the Rules for analysis, there was bound to be caused not onl...
Farukh and ors. Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1984
Reported in: AIR1984All393
ORDERK.N. Goyal, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by three of the judgment-debtors against execution proceedings pending against them in the Court of the Munsif North, Lucknow.2. Opposite party No. 3 as the landlady of the certain accommodation situated in the city of Lucknow filed a suit for ejectment in the Court of Munsif North. This was suit No. 492 of 1967. The tenant was one Najmur Rahman. He was defendant No. 1 in the suit. Four other persons were impleaded as defendants, namely, Mohammad Hasnain, Karam Khan Farukh, and Imran son of Mohammad Hasnain. Out of them Karam Khan has died and is represented by Srimati Noor Jehan petitioner No. 2, Imran is opposite party No. 4. Petitioner No. 3 and opposite parties 5 and 8 are other heirs of Mohammad Hasnain. Opposite parties 9 to 17 are the heirs of Najmur Rahman.3. The contention of the plaintiff, was that the tenant, namely, Najmur Rahman had committed a wilful default in payment of arrears of rent and had also sublet the prem...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›