Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1960All692
Mootham, C.J. 1. The question which has been referred to this Bench is whether an order of a learned Judge of this Court dismissing an appeal against an order granting a temporary injunction is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The meaning which should be given to the word 'judgment' in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court and in the corresponding Clauses of the Letters Patent of the other High Courts has engaged the minds of Judges for close on a hundred years, and has given rise to a divergence of opinion which can now only be resolved by the Supreme Court. The question has been considered in a very large number of cases many of which have been referred to in the judgment of my brother Srivastava. Basically there are three views as to what constitutes a 'judgment'. A decision according to one view will amount to a judgment if it determines some right or liability affecting the merits of the dispute between the parties; according to the seco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1887)ILR9All625
Mahmood, J.1. The fact that Her Majesty has omitted for several years to fill up a vacancy does not alter the constitution of the Court or make it illegal; nor does it amount to altering Section 2 of the Letters Patent. If your argument is correct, supposing a Judge were to die, the whole working of the Court would be brought to a standstill until his successor could be appointed.2. To comply with the provisions of Section 2, the vacancy must be filled up within a reasonable time. Otherwise the executive could at pleasure alter the constitution of the Court, and even reduce the Court to a single Judge. This cannot have been intended. Section 7 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed when a vacancy occurs, but the powers given by the section have not been exercised. The vacancy now in question occurred in 1873.Tyrrell, J.3. Probably it was inconsequence of the transfer of jurisdiction in rent cases to the Board of Revenue. It was thought that this would greatly reduce the wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1973All596
Mathur, J. 1. Special Appeal No. 499 of 1972 is by Hakim Singh, petitioner against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing his Writ Petition No. 3306 of 1970, wherein the judgments and decrees of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner in a revenue suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were challenged. This appeal was preferred even though under the Uttar Pradesh High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972. (U. P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Ordinance), later replaced by the Uttar Pradesh High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act, 1972. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Amending Act') such an appeal was not maintainable. In the Special Appeal the petitioner has challenged the constitutionality of the Amending Ordinance and the Amending Act. At the time of the hearing of the Special Appeal at the stage of admission the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2003)1UPLBEC496
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. We have heard Dr. R.G. Padia, Senior Counsel, Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastave, Sri Arvind Srivastava, Sri Sidhartha, Sri P.R. Mauiya, Sri V.S. Sinha, Advocates, appearing for the appellants and Sri P.S. Baghel, Sri Maneesh Goyal, Advocates and Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, Sri Ranvijai Singh, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents.2. In all these appeals, the question regarding maintainability of appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been raised. A preliminary objection has been raised by respondents regarding maintainability of the appeal.3. We have heard Counsel for both the parties on the question of maintainability of the appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court and by this common order we arc deciding the question of maintainability along.4. Special Appeal No. 1177 of 2001 is being treated as leading case and facts of that case are being noted in some detail for appreciating the arguments raised by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1953All419
Dayal, J.1. A preliminary objection was taken at the hearing of this petition to the effect that this Court had no jurisdiction to take proceedings for contempt of the Court of the Assistant Collector, first class, with respect to proceedings pending before it for the correction of papers under Section 40, Land Revenue Act (Act 3 of 1901).2. Section 2, Sub-section (1), Contempt of Courts Act (12 of 1926) is:'Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) the High Courts of Judicature established by Letters Patent shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempt of Courts subordinate to them as they have and exercise in respect of contempts of themselves.'The contention for the opposite party is that the Court of an Assistant Collector, first class, under the Land Revenue Act is not subordinate to the High Court and that, therefore, this Court cannot take action with respect to contempts committe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(1)AWC929
V.M. Sahai and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.1. This is an appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 by the husband against the order of the learned single Judge dated 18.8.2008 passed in a transfer application under Section 24, C.P.C. transferring Divorce Petition No. 1020 of 2006, Amit Khanna v. Smt. Suchi Khanna, from Family Court, Kanpur Nagar to the Family Court at Lakhimpur Khirt.2. At the very outset the Court confronted the learned Counsel for the appellant about the maintainability of this special appeal in view of the ratio of Jagdish Kumar v. District Judge, Budaun 1998 (1) ARC 305 : 1998 (2) AWC 293 (NOC). In the said case the single Judge has laid down that an order passed under Section 24, C.P.C. is neither appealable nor revisable. However, it can be subject to test under supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court provided it has been passed by the District Court and against an order passed by the High Court remedy under Section 25 of C.P.C. is availa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 125Ind.Cas.477
Grimwood Mears, C.J., Boys and Young, JJ.1. One Basudevanand Gir obtained leave to appeal to the Privy Council and on the due date deposited a sum of Rs, 4,000 as security for costs and a further sum for printing charges.2. On the 2nd of November, 1927, Mr. Newal Kishore, who was the legal practitioner for Shantanand Gir, the respondent to the Privy Council appeal, drafted an application to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Allahabad in which he prayed that the cash certificates for Rs. 4,000-12-0 and a sum of Rs. 798 110 for printing charges, which had been paid into the High Court by the appellant, might be attached and the amount of the decree may be so far as possible satisfied by attachment thereof. The application came before Mr. Sudeshar Maitra on the 4th of February, 1928. His order was a short one and may be given in full:The items objected to relate to the printing charges and security furnished by the defendant-objector in connection with his appeal to His Majesty in Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(4)AWC3114
D. K. Seth, J. 1. The opposite party Nos. 2. 3 and 4 filed O.S. No. 842 of 1999 before the learned Additional Civil Judge. IIIrd Court. Allahabad for the following reliefs :(a) That by decree of mandatory injunction the defendants be directed not to transfer the plaintiffs from City Allahabad to any other city. (b) That the cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs. (c) That any other and further reliefs be also awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendant which the Court deems fit and proper In the interest of justice. 2. In connection with the said suit, the opposite parry Nos. 2. 3 and 4 had filed an application for injunction. By an order dated 28th July, 1999 notices were directed to be issued on the petitioner, while the learned trial court was not satisfiedthat ad interim order could be issued before issuing the notice under Rule 3 of Order XXXIX. This order was challenged by the Opposite Party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in Civil Revision No. 940 of 1999. The learned Additional Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2007(2)AWC1093
Yatindra Singh, J.1. The controversy involved in these two writ petitions revolves around two of the intellectual property rights (I.P.Rs.) namely Patents and Trade marks; it also involves their interplay with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (the Drugs Act). It arises in connection of grant of licence to manufacture Ayurvedic drugs for animals.The Facts:2. M/s. Cattle Remedies, Araon Road, Sirsaganj, Firozabad (the petitioner) as well as M/s. Bio-Herbs Pharma, Chamar Gate, Hathras (the contesting respondents) manufacture Ayurvedic drugs for animals.3. They have licence to manufacture many Ayurvedic drugs but controversy here is in regard to the grant of licence for the following three Ayurvedic drugs (the disputed drugs) for the animals that both of them have given same name. They are:(i) Catone : It is a powder. It is for cleaning stomach and improving digestion (ii) Catcough : It is a paste. It is for 'cough and cold'(iii) Uterotone : It is a syrup. It is for facilitating reproduct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1935All620a; 157Ind.Cas.347
Sulaiman, C.J.1. Three questions have been referred to this Full Bench, for an expression of opinion by a Division Bench before which a Letters Patent appeal from an order of a Single Judge of this Court dismissing an application under Section 5, Limitation Act, came up for hearing. On 2nd May 1932, the appellant filed an application in this Court before, a Single Judge for leave to appeal in forma pauperism and that application, as required by Order 44, Rule 1 was accompanied by a memorandum of appeal containing the grounds of objections and also a prayer for the appeal being allowed. No court-fee was, of course, at that time paid on the memorandum of appeal. Both the application and the memorandum of appeal were received by the learned Judge and registered as a Miscellaneous Case, and were later on put up again before him on 9th May 1932 with an office report that the application was beyond time. On that date the applicant was not present in the Court room and her application for lea...
Tag this Judgment!