Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-03-1974
Reported in : AIR1975All231
J.M.L. Sinha, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated27th August, 1970 passed by a learned Single Judge in a suit under Section 29 of the Indian Patents and Designs Act.2. The suit out of which the appeal has arisen was filed by Messrs. Shri Krishna Industries, a registered partnership firm (hereafter to be called the respondent), doing business in the manufacture of locks. The respondent's case, briefly stated, was as follows:--3. In the year 1958 the respondent invented ,a new design of lock and got it registered under the Patents & Designs Act, 1911. The lock was sold under the trade mark of 'Rocket'. In 1965 a new type of lock was invented with improved key operated padlock; and on 1st of May, 1965 the respondent applied for and obtained Patent No. 99371 for the new lock as well. The newly invented lock became popular and earned a good place for itself in the market. The appellant No. 1 is also a registered partnership firm dealing in the manufacture of locks a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-19-1974
Reported in : AIR1975All73
M.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This is the defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages, etc.2. The plaintiff's allegations in brief are these. The plaintiff-respondent is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The defendant-appellant Pratap Narain was employed as a worker in the factory of the said Company at Kalpi Road. The plaintiff Company took on rent some of the Kamla Town Trust quarters from the landlord thereof with a view to allot the said quarters to its own employees for their use and occupation during the period of their employment. In consideration of the Defendant's employment and, in fact, as a part of his contract of employment, the defendant was allowed to occupy quarter No. 3/16 on a monthly rent of Rs. 16.25 and the understanding was that he would continue to occupy the said quarter as long as he was in the plaintiff's employment and would vacate the same and deliver its vacant possession to the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-03-1974
Reported in : AIR1974All456
ORDERH.N. Seth, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the five petitioners pray that notices (Annexures I, II and II-A to the petition) issued under the provisions of Section 279 and Section 281 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, for recovering certain amount alleged to be due against them, be quashed.2. The petitioners claim that they were hereditary tenants of certain plots lying in villages Sarwar Khera, Kudiawala and Gangapur in Kashipur Tahsil, District Nainital. On 27-5-1971, the Amin of Tehsil Kashipur issued demand notices requiring them to pay various amounts alleged to be due from them on account of arrears of rent for the period upto 1378. It is not disputed that in due course the State of U.P. acquired proprietary rights in respect of various plots in Kashipur Tehsil in the year 1949, and thereafter the petitioners who were the hereditary tenants of sueh plots, continued to Day rent in respect thereof to the Colonisation Department ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-20-1974
Reported in : AIR1974All324
ORDERK.N. Srivastava, J.1. In this election petition privilege has been claimed regarding three sets of documents. Sri S. S. Saxena is alleged to have claimed privilege regarding four papers, including copy of a blue book with the title as 'Rules and Instructions for the Protection of Prime Minister when on Tour or in Travel'. Privilege was claimed by the Superintendent of Police, Rae-Bareli, regarding two papers which relate to the Tour Programme of Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi at Rae-Bareli during the election period. Sri K. P. Sood claimed privilege regarding two documents. Sri Sood is an officer of the Accountant General's Office, Central Revenue, New Delhi. Sri Saxena is alleged to have claimed privilege orally as an agent and representative of Sri R. K. Kaul, Home Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Government. This privilege was claimed by Sri Saxena on 10-9-1973, but an affidavit was filed by Sri Kaul claiming that privilege on 20-9-1973. Much stress was laid by the parties' counsel in suppor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-24-1974
Reported in : AIR1974All218
Yashoda Nandan, J. 1. The questions arising for decision in this appeal are as to whether it is incumbent on the State Government to frame rules under Section 68-I (2) (cc) of the Motor Vehicles Act --hereinafter referred to as the Act -- prescribing the form in which an application for a permit under Section 68-F (1) of the Act must be made and further as to whether in the absence of such rules the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority as the case might be is powerless to grant a permit to a State Transport Undertaking under that provision of the Act. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the Aligarh-Atrauli-Ramghat route was notified for provision of Road Transport Service exclusively by the appellant U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow--hereinafter referred to as the Corporation. The Corporation is a State Transport Undertaking within the meaning of Section 68-A (b) of the Act. The legality of the scheme was challenged by means...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-28-1974
Reported in : AIR1975All29
G.C. Mathur, J. 1. These five writ petitions have been filed by five licensees who had been granted licences under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, for generation and distribution of electrical energy. The U.P. State Electricity Board has served notices upon each one of the licensees to deposit various sums of money as security. These notices have been challenged in these writ petitions. Since several common questions arise in these writ petitions, it will be convenient to dispose them of by one judgment.2. The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, was enacted by the Central Legislature for the rationalisation of the production and supply of electricity and generally for taking measures conducive to electrical development. It, inter alia, provides for the setting up of State Electricity Boards, for the generation of electrical energy by the Boards and for the supply of electrical energy by the Boards to the licensees. All the petitioners are being supplied electrical energy in bulk by the U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-23-1974
Reported in : AIR1975All154
ORDERK.N. Singh, J. 1. Messrs. Jagat Nath Wahal, Jeewan Nath Wahal and Mahabir Prasad Srivastava made applications before the State Transport Authority, Luck-now, for grant of stage carriage permits on Meerut-Delhi, an inter-State route. The State Transport Authority dismissed all the three applications mainly on the ground that the Meerut-Delhi was a notified route under the Motor Vehicles Act and as such no stage carriage permit could legally be granted to the said applicants. The order of the State Transport Authority was challenged in appeal by Jagannath Wahal, Jeewan Nath Wahal and Mahabir Prasad Srivastava before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal). By its order dated 27th February, 1973, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the three appeals and set aside the order of the State Transport Authority, it further directed the State Transport Authority to grant stage carriage permits to each of the three appellants. The Appellat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-31-1974
Reported in : AIR1975All199
ORDER1. Certain agricultural land was declared surplus in village Kurdi Khera Chahchak alias Kalluwala Jahanpur Uttari in the district of Saharanpur, under the provisions of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The surplus land was allotted temporarily to one Surja and the third respondent, Basiram. After the proceedings by way of appeals etc. were over the Prescribed Authority proceeded to make permanent allotments. Petitioner was one of the applicants. Tahsildar Saharanpur recommended the case of the petitioner whereupon the Prescribed Authority by his order dated June 30, 1970 allotted a few plots of land to the petitioner and a lease was also executed in his favour, in the meantime the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 filed objections before the Prescribed Authority disputing the allotment in favour of the petitioner, on the ground that he was not a landless labourer but was living with his father who had plenty of land. After hearing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-07-1974
Reported in : AIR1975All13
Satish Chandra, J. 1. Theseseven appeals raise common question and can conveniently be decided by a common judgment.2. Building No. 51/10, Naugarha, in the city of Kanpur, was owned by respondents Nos. 3 to 5. The various appellants in these seven appeals were tenants of different portions of this building. On 21st January, 1965, respondents Nos. 3 to 5, the Landlords, applied under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for permission to sue for the eviction of the tenants. After hearing the parties the Rent Control and Eviction Officer granted the requisite permission. The revisions filed by the tenants before the Commissioner as well as before the State Government failed and were dismissed. On 9th February, 1971, the Landlords filed seven separate suits in the court of the City Munsif, Kanpur, for the ejectment of the appellants from the accommodations in their respective possession.3. Before the evidence was recorded in these suits the U. P. Civi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-14-1974
Reported in : [1984]148ITR608(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for the quashing of a notice of attachment issued by the ITO, Kanpur, on April 22, 1972, under Section 226 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and for the refund of the sum of money attached thereunder.2. M/s. L. K. Ahuja & Co. was a partnership firm. It was constituted in February, 1969. The accounting period of the firm was from 1st February to 31st January, of the next year. It had five partners, Kanhaiya Lal, petitioner No. 2 being one of them. Four minors, including Km. Ashu and Shankar Lal, whose guardians are petitioners Nos. 3 and 4, had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. This firm was reconstituted on 1st September, 1970. Some of the partners retired and some new persons, including Manohar Lal Ahuja, petitioner No. 1, became partners in this firm. The petitioners allege that soon after its constitution, the firm took several contracts with the railway department for construction of buildings. When...
Tag this Judgment!