Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1941All207
Bajpai, J.1. The learned District Judge of Meerut had before him a reference under Section 19 read with Section 15, Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act (vi of 1923) relating to the rent of bungalow No. 17, R.A. Lines, Meerut. He dismissed the reference on 30th May 1940. Chheda Lal Jain, the person aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge, has filed the present first appeal from order against the decision of the Court below. It is conceded that the appeal has been filed more than thirty days after the decision of the learned District; Judge and is prima facie barred by time by reason of the provisions of Section 29, Sub-section (2) of the Act which say that no appeal under this section shall be admitted unless it is made within thirty days from the date of the decision against which it is preferred.2. We have before us the appeal itself and an application under Section 5, Limitation Act. On behalf of the respondent it is contended that Section 5, Limitation Act, is not app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1941All377
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge of Dehra Dun dated 26th March 1935, by which the plaintiffs' claim for recovery of a sum of money was dismissed. Plaintiff 1, Devi Prasad Sri Krishna Prasad, Ltd, of Delhi is a limited liability company which was incorporated on 4th September 1931, with the object inter alia 'to enter into a contract of sale of forest produce with the Forests Officer, western circle.' Plaintiff 2 firm Devi Prasad Sri Krishna Prasad is a firm of Government Contractors in Delhi. The defendant is the Secretary of State for India in Council. On 21st May 1931, a sum of Rs. 25,000 was deposited by plaintiff 2 with Mr. V. A. Herbert, Conservator of Forests of the western circle who was-acting in the transaction on behalf of the defendant as security money for performance of a contract of lease and sale of forest produce. The plaintiffs, alleging that the contract for the performance of which the said sum was deposited remained i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1942]10ITR308(All)
.COLLITER AND BAJPAI, JJ.-This is a reference under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The assessee is Gaya Prasad Tewari. The accounting year was from Asarh Sudi 3rd, S. 1992 to asarh Sudi 11th, S. 1993 and the assessment year was 1937-38. One of the items included by the Income-tax Officer in the income of the assessee was a sum of Rs. 600 consent and it was provided that the lady was to appropriate Rs. 50 a month from the income of the trust property by virtue of her office as Mukh Dharam Karta. Having regard to all the facts, we are of opinion that in the circumstances of this case the allowance of Rs. 50 a month was income which arose indirectly 'from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the wife by the husband otherwise than for adequate consideration or in connectio wirh an agreement to live apart.' It is, therefore, computable as part of the total income of the husband under Section 16 (3) (iii) of the Act; it is not salary arising out of employment, as claimed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1943All26
ORDER1. This is (in application in revision by one Salig Ram who, along with 30 other persons was tried by a Special Magistrate for an offence punishable under Section 395, Penal Code. The offence that formed the subject of charge against the applicant was alleged to have boon committed on 14th August 1942. The trial was by a Special Magistrate in pursuance of the provisions of Section 10 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1942. The learned Magistrate acquitted one of the accused and convicted the remaining 30 accused. He sentenced Salig Ram to two years' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 50 and in default of payment of fine he ordered Salig Ram to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Salig Ram appealed to the Sessions Judge who dismissed the appeal holding that no appeal lay to him in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Ordinance. Salig Ram then filed the present application in revision in this Court. The decision of the Magistrate has been assailed by Mr. Pyare Lal Banerji ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1943All331
ORDERIqbal Ahmad, C. J.1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal P. C, and was filed on 27th April last by one Baldeva Das with a view to secure the release of Pt. Kamlapati Tewari from detention under an order purporting to be made under Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules. The application is supported by an affidavit which shows that Kamlapati Tewari, who is a member of the Legislative Assembly, United Provinces, attended a meeting of the All India Congress Committee at Bombay and, on his return journey from Bombay was arrested at the Allahabad Railway Station on the night of 10th August 1912, and is at present detained under Rule 26. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, who appeared for the applicant, contended that Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules was invalid and submitted that it had been so held in a recent case by the Federal Court. On 27th April I adjourned the hearing of the application to this date to enable Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru to file a certified copy of the judgment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1943All345
Collister, J.1. This is a suit against the United Provinces by a land-holder of the district of Allahabad, by name Sheikh Mohammad Zia. He challenges the validity of 12 specific sections of the U. P. Tenancy Act (17 of 1939) and he also challenges the validity of the U. P. Stayed Arrears of Rent (Remissions) Act--Act 18 of 1939. The plaint recites the history of the legislation for consolidating and amending the law relating to agricultural tenancies from 20th April 1988, the date of the introduction of the bill in the Legislative Assembly, to 1st January 1940, the date when the Act came into force. It is alleged that when leave was sought to introduce the bill, certain members of the Legislative Assembly objected that, as some of the provisions were of an expropriatory character against the land-holders, the previous sanction of the Governor for its introduction was necessary under Section 299(3), Government of India Act; and, thereafter, the matter was referred to the Governor, who a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1943All379
Iqbal Ahmad, C. J.1. After the promulgation of Ordinance 19 of 1943 on 5th June 1943, numerous appeals against the decisions of Special Judges and Special Magistrates, in cases tried by them in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 2 of 1942, were filed in this Court and, in most of the appeals, the validity of Ordinance 19 itself was assail-ed. A number of applications under Section 491, Criminal P. C., were also filed and in those applications as well the question of the validity or otherwise of Ordinance 19 was directly and specifically in issue. Before these appeals and applications were put for final disposal, the question raised formed the subject of debate and discussion in and of decision by the Calcutta, Patna and the Madras High Courts, and the decisions of those Courts were by no means uniform. To avoid conflict of judicial opinion in this Court on the question raised, and also with a view to have an authoritative pronouncement for the guidance of the Sessions Judges s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1945All1
Collister, J.1. On 10th May 1943 we issued notice to the editor, publisher and printer of a daily newspaper known as the 'Bombay Sentinel' in respect to a comment which appeared in its issue of 28th April 1943. The respondent is a gentleman named Mr. B.G. Horniman, and apparently he combines in himself the functions of editor, publisher and printer of the aforesaid paper. He failed to appear in response to two successive notices from this Court, and accordingly on 2nd September 1943 we issued a bailable warrant of arrest against him. The warrant was addressed to the Commissioner of Police at Bombay. The latter produced the respondent before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, who released him on bail in terms of our order. The respondent then went in revision to the High Court at Bombay against the order which had been passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate and in which the latter approved the respondent's surety and released the respondent on bail and directed him to appear before thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1944All97
Verma, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit by a wife against her husband in which the main relief claimed was a decree for maintenance. The Court below has decreed the suit in part, and the defendant has appealed. The plaintiff has submitted to the decree.2. The plaintiff-respondent, Rani Jagat Pra. tap Kunwar, was a German girl, Mellita Franck by name, and a Roman Catholic Christian by religion, before her marriage with the defendant. She came out to India in December 1935 and was employed at a hotel, called Hakman's Hotel, at Mussoorie. There is nothing in the pleadings or in the evidence to show what her occupation was. The learned Judge below, however, states in his judgment that she was an 'artist.' It is possible that this observation of the learned Judge is based on some statement made by the counsel for the parties before him in the course of the trial. But it is not at all clear what sort of an 'artist' she was. She was getting a salary of Rs. 1000 per month and was allo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1944All62
Allsop, J.1. The question which we have to answer is whether the Governor-General had power validly to enact Section 2 of ordinance 14 of 1943. His powers of legislation are derived from the provisions of Section 72 set out in Schedule 9, Government of India Act, 1935. These provisions as amended are as follows:The Governor-General may in oases of emergency make and promulgate ordinances for the peace and good government of British India or any part thereof and any ordinance so made shall have the like force of law as an Act passed by the Indian Legislature; but the power of making ordinances under this section is subject to the like restrictions as the power of the Indian Legislature to make laws; and any ordinance made under this section is subject to the like disallowance as an Act passed by the Indian Legislature and may be controlled or superseded by any such Act.There is a provision in the India and Burma (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1940, that the Governor-General shall not be su...
Tag this Judgment!