Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-03-1951
Reported in : AIR1952All48
Agarwala, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was a monthly tenant of a shop at Lucknow belonging to him, that the monthly rent was Rs. 18 12 0 that he had obtained the permission of the Rent Control Officer to eject the defendant, that he had served the defendant with a notice to quit by 31-1-1950, that this notice was served on the defendant on 23-12-1949 and that the defendant had cot vacated the shop in spite of notice and that therefore he had to bring the suit for his ejectment. He claimed a sum of Rs. 22 12-0 as arrears of rent. In defence the defendant admitted that he was a tenant of the shop in dispute for a long time and that he was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 18-12-0 per month. He did not however admit the rest of the allegations with regard to tenancy on the ground that he had no knowledge thereof. He admitted the receipt of the notice to quit but he did not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-13-1951
Reported in : AIR1951All703
ORDERDesai, J.1. The applicants are being prosecuted under Section 120B, I. P. C. & Rules 81(4) & 121, Defence of India Rules, for entering into a conspiracy & infringing the provisions of the Non-ferrous Metals Control Order of 1942. They are said to have committed the offence in the years 1943 to 1945. The offence remained under investigation for a long period & the prosecution was launched against them on 16-1-1950. On 19-4-1950 they pressed before the trial Ct. that their prosecution could not be continued for various reasons, the most important being that the Defence of India Act & Rules have expired & the Govt. of India Act, 1935 has been repealed by the Const. The trial Ct. held that there was no bar to the continuance of the prosecution & refused their request to quash the proceedings. They went up in revision against this order to the Ses. J. The learned Sess. J. contented himself with pouring encomia on the trial Ct. for its elaborate order & refused to do anything in the mat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-21-1951
Reported in : AIR1951All667
Desai, J.1. On an appln. by Sukhdeo, appct., notices were issued to the opposite parties calling upon them to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of the Ct of Panchayati Adalat, Rampur Athiri. The opposite parties have appeared & we have heard their defence.[2] On 28 & 29-3-1950, two complaints were filed in the Panchayati Adalat of Rampur Athiri against the appct. on the allegations that several tenants had paid rent to the appct., that he had not granted receipts to them saying that he was not dishonest & that he was in the habit of not issuing receipts. The Panchayati Adalat took cognizance of the complaints & summoned the appct. for trial Under Section 290, I. P. C. In the complaints no law was quoted under which the appct. had rendered himself liable to prosecution & apparently the Panchayati Adalat thought that the allegations in them made out an offence punishable Under Section 290, I. P. C. There was no quorum on 9-4 1950 & the cases were adjourned to 23-4 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-10-1951
Reported in : AIR1951All746
Malik, C.J.1. These are two applications under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that this Court might be pleased to issue writs in the nature of certiorari, prohibition & mandamus for different acts alleged to have been done by the respondents. The first of these applications has been filed by the Asiatic Engineering Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called the Company) & its writ application number is 287 of 1950. The second application has been presented to this Court by a foreign Company, the Amin Agencies Ltd., & its number is 288 of 1950. Broadly speaking, the main facts which have given rise to them are the same, but we propose first of all to set out in brief the salient features of application No. 287 & thereafter deal with those distinguishing facts on which application No. 288 of 1950 is founded.2. The Company was incorporated as a private company under the Indian Companies Act in 1941 & has its registered office at 25/26 Waterloo Street, Calcutta, in the State of West Bengal. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-09-1951
Reported in : AIR1952All88
C.B. Agarwala, J. 1. This is one out of numerous writ applications filed in this Court questioning the validity of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, No. 1 of 1951, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' or 'the impugned Act'. The validity of the Act has been upheld in a recent decision of a Full Bench of this Court, vide 'Suryapal Singh v. Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, 1951 A. L. J. 365. 2. Sri Prem Mohan Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, however, urges that there are several points that arise in the case which were not argued before the Pull Bench and hence were not dealt with by that Bench, He contends that the Act is invalid for several reasons. 3. The first ground argued is that apart from the provisions of Article 31(4), the State Legislature was incompetent to legislate with regard to the acquisition of the property of the intermediaries on condition of payment of compensation by means of bonds. It is urged that the condition of payment of comp...
Tag this Judgment!