1
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-07-1949
Reported in : AIR1950All196
Malik, C.J.1. This appeal was filed under S. 10 of the Letters Patent against an order of a learned single Judge dismissing an application Under Section 276 of Act, XXXIX [39] of 1925. One Ram Dutt Joshi died on llth of March 1943, leaving a will dated 14th January 1943. The application by the Benares Hindu University asked for a grant of letters of administration in the right of its being a universal legatee. The application was contested by Gauri Dutt Joshi, father of the testator, who claimed that the will was not validly executed and, further, that the applicant, the Benares Hindu University, is an association of individuals and is not entitled to get letters of administration.2. The learned single Judge held on the fasts in favour of the applicant but dismissed the application as he came to the conclusion that the Benares Hindu University was an association of individuals and letters of administration could not, therefore, be granted in its favour. The applicant has filed this app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-12-1949
Reported in : AIR1949All513; 1949CriLJ798
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an application by Shri Basudeva under Section 491, Criminal P. O. The applicant is the proprietor of firm styled 'Mahanand Ram Bajoria and Brothers' in Shahjahanpur which deals in kerosene oil. On 19th. December, 1948, the applicant was arrested and Ordered to be detained under the U. P. Prevention of Black-marketing (Temporary Powers) Act, XXII [93] of 1048. By the present application, the applicant contends that his-arrest and detention, under this Act, are illegal' and one of the grounds which has been urged is that the provisions of the Act which provide for-detention are ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature.2. The impugned Act received the assent of-the Governor General on 11th April, 1948 under Section 76, Government of India Act, 1935, as adapted, and was promulgated on 14th April, 1948. The' Preamble of the Act is as follows:Whereas it is expedient in the interest of maintenance of Public Order and supplies essential to the life-of the community to pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-23-1949
Reported in : AIR1950All258
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal in a suit relating to an alleged infringement of trade-mark. The plaintiff is the proprietor of a manufacturing firm called the Indian Drug House, Allahabad, while the defendants are a firm in Bombay manufacturing and dealing with various classes of medicine. The plaintiff in 1930 put on the market a certain, medicine considered to be a nervine tonic which he labelled with the words 'Tonic Phosphotone' while the defendants about six years later brought out another medicine which they advertised under the title of 'Cipla Phosphoton'. Since this year the two medicines, as found by the trial Court, had been in the market and enjoyed each a certain degree of popularity.2. It is necessary to visualise the precise basis on which the plaintiff sought his relief which was for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his servants and agents from manufacturing and offering for sale, etc., anywhere in the country any stuff with the mark a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-12-1949
Reported in : 1949CriLJ852
Wali Ullah, Ag. C.J.1. I agree that this application should be dismissed. The full facts of the case are set out in the Orders of my learned brothers, Sapru and Bhargava J J , and I gene, rally agree with the reasons given by them.2. The applicant was removed from practice by an Order of the Special Bench of three Judges in miscellaneous Case No. 243 of 1946 dated 20th December 1946. On 29th July 1947, the present application for re-instatement and permission to practise was made by the applicant. It purports to be an application under Section 12(6), Bar Councils Act.2a. We have heard Mr. S. N. Verma, the learned Counsel for the applicant, at length. We have also heard Mr. Kunzru on behalf of the Bar Council and Dr. Faruqi, Government Advocate, on behalf of the Advocate-General, who have both opposed the application. Some argument has been addressed to us on the question whether the High Court acting under Section 12(6), Bar Councils Act can admit fresh evidence and, on the strength of...
Tag this Judgment!