Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1954All257
Mukerji, J. 1. These are 106 connected petitions under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India. All these petitions raise more or less the same questions for decision -- at any rate the main questions which fall for determination in these cases are the same. These are all petitions by persons who have been operating motor vehicles for gain on the public highways of the State. These petitioners had the necessary 'permit' to operate their vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939. The Uttar Pradesh Government has, by virtue of powers conferred upon it by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Act, 1950 (U. P. Act No. II of 1951), hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act, in effect stopped some of the petitioners from plying their vehicles on the public highways and instead commenced plying vehicles of its own.2. All the petitions have more or less Bought common reliefs. The main relief sought is that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All113
Malik, C.J. 1. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of my brother Desai. I agree with him that the Panchayati Adalat is not bound by the provisions of the Criminal P. C. and if for the three offences it did not pass separate sentences, it cannot be said that the sentence is illegal provided the sentence passed by it is within its competence. 2. As regards the second contention that the bench was not constituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 49 (2), Panchayat Raj Act, two points were raised before us: firstly, that the decision was given by as many as seven panches and, secondly, that there was only one panch from village Hajiganj to which the complainant and the accused belonged while there should have been two. 3. As regards the first point, we gave the appellant an opportunity to establish that the bench consisted of more than five panches or that more than five panches had taken part in the proceedings or pronounced, the judgment. Learned counsel admitted th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All638; 1955CriLJ1451
Desai, J.1. I agree with ray brother Chowdhry that the Deputy Superintendent of Police is guilty of contempt of the Courts of the Judicial Magistrate and the District Magistrate, Fatehpur. Since it is a serious matter to find a Deputy Superintendent of Police guilty of contempt of Court, I would like to give my reasons for doing so. It is not necessary to repeat the facts which have been stated by my learned brother in his judgment.2. The case against the opposite party (I am for the present dealing with the case against the Deputy Superintendent alone) is contained in the affidavit filed by Sheoraj in this Court on the basis of which these proceedings have been initiated. When the opposite party appeared in Court in response to the notice, it was brought to our notice by Sri P. C. Chaturvedi, who had filed the application for contempt proceedings, that Sheoraj had been won over by the opposite party and did not appear to give him further instructions.We summoned Sheoraj to appear pers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1957All575
Brij Mohan Lall, J. 1. This and the connected First Appeal No. 435 of 1943 are defendants' appeals arising out of the same judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge of Allahabad. This appeal was preferred by nine appellants some of whom have died during its pendency and have since been substituted by their legal representatives. Mr. Gopinath Kunzru who preferred the appeal on behalf of all the 9 appellants informs us that he has instructions to argue this appeal on behalf of two appellants only, viz. Abdul Kadir appellant No. 4 and Manmohan Das who was appellant No. 1 and who after his death is now represented by his legal representatives. So far as other appellants are concerned the appeal shall have to be dismissed for default. If may be pointed out at this stage that every appellant has a separate interest and that separate and distinct reliefs have been sought by the respondents against everyone of them.2. Connected Appeal No. 435 of 1943 has been preferred by Rakhal Das Bose ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1957All505
Desai, J.1. This is an application, purporting to be under Order 45, Rule 13, C. P. C., for the issue of an order staying operation of the order passed by this Court on October 8, 1956, in Writ Petition No. 252 of 1956 and maintaining the status quo as regards possession over the land covered by the orders of the consolidation authorities. The facts leading to this application are as follows:2. Under Section 26 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (No. 5 of 1954) possession of some land belonging to opposite parties Nos. 1 to 11 was transferred to other tenants of the village, who are opposite parties 12 to 16. After exhausting the remedy as provided in the Act against the transfer they filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, Mukhtar Singh v. State of U. P. : AIR1957All297 . A Bench of this Court quashed the orders of the consolidation authorities regarding transfer of possession of the Opposite parties' land on 8th October, 1956 on the ground that Section 14 (ee) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1959All276
V. Bhargava, J. 1. These two connected Special Appeals are directed against one common judgment of the learned Company Judge by which he dismissed two petitions lor winding up of the same company presented by the same petitioners. The first petition was presented on the 22nd of February, 1950 on behalf of two persons appearing as petitioners. The first petitioner was Mohan Lal in his personal capacity.The second petitioner was Seth Mohan Lal and Co., which was a trade name under which Mohan Lal was himself carrying on the business, he being the sole proprietor of this firm. The first petition, which was registered as case No. 12 of 1950, was based on certain grounds, which according to the petitioners had come into existence by the 22nd of February, 1950. Subsequently, the petitioners made an application for amendment of this petition.The amendments sought not only included facts relating to incidents before the 22nd of February, 1930 but also certain facts which came into existence af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1961All456; 1961CriLJ306
Desai, C.J. 1. I agree with my brother Uniyal, whose judgment I had the advantage to read, that the second question must be answered in the negative. Since the question is an important one, I would briefly state my reasons. The rule of exemption from compulsory self-incrimination in the English law is not regarded as a part of the law of the land of Magna Charta or the due process of law but is regarded as separate from, and independent of, due process and came into existence not as an essential part of due process but as 'a wise and beneficent rule of evidence developed in the course of judicial decision'.The wisdom of the exemption has never been universally assented to; many doubt it today, and it is best defended not as an unchangeable principle of universal justice, but as a law proved byexperience to be expedient. It has no place in the jurisprudence of civilised and free countries outside of the domain of the common law and is nowhere observed in the search for truth outside the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1964All523
Pathak, J.1. This is an appeal under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against an order dismissing an election petition.2. The first respondent, Z.A. Ahmad, was declared elected on February 28, 1962 to the U.P. Legislative Assembly from the Kopaganj Assembly Constituency in the district of Azamgarh. An election petition challenging the validity of his election was presented by the appellant, who was one of the contesting candidates and had received the next highest number of votes in the election. The election petition was referred by the Election Commission to the Election Tribunal, Azamgarh for trial. The petition contained a number of allegations of corrupt practices, and it is admitted that when presenting it before the Election Commission no affidavit in support of these allegations was filed with it.3. In his written statement and also by a separate application, the first respondent raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of theelection petition contending ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1964]15STC116(All)
S.C. Manchanda, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the order of the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax and the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax in respect of the assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner in default of appearance and the confirmation of that order by the Judge (Revisions).2. The facts leading up to this petition need not be referred to except in the baldest outline for the reason that the question which arises here primarily concerns the interpretation to be placed on Section 9 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act (which is analogous to Section 31 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) and Rule 68(5) of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules, hereinafter referred to as the rules.3. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of fabricating and casting of nonferrous metal alloys for sale. The principal place of business is at Hathras. The petitioner was assessed to sales ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1965]58ITR828(All)
A Hindu undivided family carried on business under the name and style of Messrs. Hirday Narain Yogendra Prakash at Bareilly. The family suffered partition, and an application under section 25A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was allowed by the Income-tax Officer who recognised the partition with effect from November 19, 1949. The erstwhile members of the family entered into a partnership for carrying on the business hitherto belonging to the family. This business was carried on by the partnership under the same name and style. The partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') was registered under section 26A for the assessment year 1951-52. Certain changes were effected in the constitution of the firm, and for the assessment year 1953-54 an application was made by the reconstituted firm for registration under section 26A. The Income-tax Officer, however, made an order on February 5, 1955, refusing to recognise these changes and declined, therefore, to grant registration. An...
Tag this Judgment!