Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: allahabad Year: 1955 Page 2 of about 70 results (0.011 seconds)

Aug 02 1955 (HC)

Bithal Das Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-02-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All156; [1956]30ITR647(All)

mootham, c.j.1. these are six applications under section 24 (4), u. p. agricultural income-tax act arising out of the refusal of the revision board to state a case for the opinion of this court. these six applications are based on the same facts and purport to raise common questions of law.2. one sri mahadeo prasad was in the year 1355 fasli the manager of a joint hindu family consisting of himself, his wife, his widowed mother and his three sons, and in that year he was assessed to agricultural income-tax as the head of the family. in the following year sri mahadeo prasad filed an application before the collector, gorakhpur, who was the assessing authority, alleging that a separation had taken place in the family and that the shares of the members had been declared by a decree of the civil court dated 12-12-1948.the collector was satisfied that there had been a disruption of the joint family, and by an order dated 15-10-1949, he transferred the case to the assistant collector directing him to assess separately each of the six members of the family, the assistant collector- did so on 25-10-1949, when he passed a separate assessment order in respect of each of the six members of the family.3. on 6-12-1950, the state filed an application in revision against the orders of the col- lector and assistant collector dated respectively the 15th october and 25th october, 1949. it seems that the only prayer was that the assessment orders be set aside and it appears -that sri mahadeo .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 1955 (HC)

Ram Nath Koeri and anr. Vs. Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills and 2 ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-25-1955

Reported in : (1956)IILLJ11All

mootham, c.j. 1. i had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by my brother; i agree with his conclusion for the reasons which he has given and there is little that i can usefully add. the principal question is whether the findings of the industrial court can be enforced as an award under section 6 of the uttar pradesh industrial disputes act, 1947. that section deals with awards and the action to be taken on them, and it is to be noted that the word 'award' is not defined in the act, nor is it used elsewhere in the act than in this section. the word must there-fore bear its ordinary meaning which is defined by murray as ' a decision after examination of a judicial sentence, especially that of an arbitrator or umpire' and in webster's international dictionary as 'judgment,' sentence or final decision, specially the decision of arbitration in a case submitted. the question is therefore whether the finding of the industrial court under clause 13 of the government notification dated 10 march, 1948, is an award as so defined.2. that notification refers both to 'findings' and 'an award' and in my opinion both expressions are used in the same sense. sub-clause (1) of clause 7 requires a conciliation board to record its findings on each issue; sub-clause (3) and (4) of the same clause refer to these findings as an award and clause 12 provides for an appeal from such award. the notification by clause 13 requires the industrial court after hearing the appeal to do what the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 1955 (HC)

Aziz Ahmad Vs. Sher Ali and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-26-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All8

mootham, c.j. 1. the question which has been referred to this bench is 'whether a surety is discharged when the creditor allows the execution of his decree against the principal debtor to be barred by limitation.' 2. this court has consistently taken the view that a surety is discharged when a creditor allows his remedy against the principal debtor to become baried under the law of limitation, but a different view has been taken by the other high courts in india and by the former chief court of oudh (see -- 'hajarimal v. krishnarav', 5 bom 647 (a); --'bireshwar chatterji v. saidpur commercial bank ltd., 41 cal wn 1361 (b); -- 'subramania aiyar v. gopala aiyar', 33 mad 308 (c); -- 'nur din v. allah ditta', air 1932 lah 419 (d); -- 'jagdambika pratap narain singh v. tir singh bahadur singh 1941 oudh wn 473 (e)) and in -- 'mahant singh v. u ba yi the privy council expressed its preference for the reasoning of the majority. 3. in england a failure to sue the principal debtor until recovery is barred by the statute of limitation does not operate as a discharge of the surety. in -- 'carter v. white (1885) 25 ch d 666 (g) lindlay, l. j., said, 'is it the law that a creditor who neglects to v sue his debtor till the statute has run will thereby discharge his surety? there is no decision to that effect. on the contrary, the true principle is that mere omission to sue does not discharge the surety, because the surety can himself set the law in operation against the debtor.' we think .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1955 (HC)

Debi Prasad and ors. Vs. Khelawan and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-30-1955

Reported in : AIR1957All67

agarwala, j. 1. this is a special appeal against an order of a learned single judge of this court dismissing a writ petition. the respondents along with several other persons made an application to the sub-divisional officer, dumariaganj, on 6-3-1953, praying that an enquiry be held as to their possession over certain land lying in village tandauthi. it was not stated in the application under what provisions of law it was being made, but it is conceded that this was an application under the u. p. land reforms (supplementary) act (act 31 of 1952).although the year was not mentioned in the application it was probably intended that the enquiry was to be made about the possession of the applicants in the year 1359 pasli. such an enquiry is envisaged in section 4 of the aforesaid act upon an application made within six months from the commencement of the act. the act came into force on 7-11-1952 and the application having been made on 6-3-1953 was within time.2. upon this application the sub-divisional magistrate ordered the tahsildar to make an enquiry and to submit his report. the tahsildar made an enquiry through the girdawar qanungo who appears to have gone on the spot and enquired from the applicants about the details of the plots in respect of which they wanted an enquiry to be already stated, the plots were not mentioned in the application nor were the names of the zamindars mentioned. the girdawar qanungo reported that as neither the plots in possession of each .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 1955 (HC)

Baqridan and ors. Vs. Bashir Ahmad Khan and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-10-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All94

agarwala, j.1. this, is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that plaintiff 1 was the 'mutwalli' of the mosque in dispute and none of the defendants had any connection with the mutwalliship; that amanullah, plaintiff 4, was the duty appointed imam' of the mosque and none of the defendants had any right to 'imamship'; and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs in going to the mosque and offering their prayers under the 'imamship' of a person according to their choice, and for further direction to the defendants not to interfere with the management of the mosque by plaintiff 1.the suit was filed by eleven muslim residents of the town of chandauli, in the district of banaras, as representatives of their community under order 1, rule 8 of schedule i, civil p. c. the defendants to the suit were one hundred and forty eight muslims.2. the plaintiffs' case was that the mosque was a public 'waqf,' that the muhammadans or bazar chandauli had always been offering their prayers in it that abdul rahman, plaintiff 1, who resided in the vicinity of the mosque was managing the mosque as its 'mutwalli' with the consent of the worshippers and that defendant 1 who claimed to be the mutwalli' interfered with the management of the mosque by plaintiff 1 and with the functioning of plantiff 4 as 'pesh imam'.3. some of the defendants contested the suit and alleged that jangi khan, father of defendants 1 to 3, was the ' .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 28 1955 (HC)

Gopaldas Sarvadayal Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-28-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All305; [1956]7STC360(All)

v. bhargava, j.1. the applicants, messrs. gopaldas sarvadayal were assessed to sales tax and, after having appealed against the assessment to judge (appeals), they came in revision before the judge (revisions). the revision application was heard by the learned judge on 4-6-1951, and the order under sub-section (3) of section 10, u. p. sales tax act, on that application was dictated and pronounced in open court on the same date by the learned judge (revisions).on 6-8-1951. the applicants moved an application under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the act, requiring the revising authority to refer to the high court certain questions of law arising out of that order. the application was returned to the applicants on the ground that it was not accompanied by a copy of the order passed under sub-section (3) of section 10 of the act.the copy of that order, required to be sent to the applicants under rule 70 of the rules framed under the act, was received by the applicants on 20-8-1951. thereafter the applicants again sent their application for reference of the questions of law to the court by post accompanied by a copy of the order that had been sent by them. this application was received by the judge (revisions) on the hearing of this application, a question arose whether it was time barred. the learned judge (revisions) held that the application was time-barfed and, consequently, rejected it. thereupon the applicants moved this court under sub-section (3) of section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 1955 (HC)

Ram Sahai and anr. Vs. Ram Sewak

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-12-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All321

mootham, c.j. 1. this is an application for leave to appeal to the supreme court from a judgment and decree of this court dated 16-12-1953.2. the dispute between the parties relates to a claim by the respondent that he is entitled to a one-fourth share in two plots of land in the town of ferozabad. on an issue being remitted by this court the value of that one-fourth share was found by the learned additional civil judge of agra to be rs. 10,425/- and that figure is not now in dispute. the appellant contends however that the judgment and decree of this court 'involves directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting' the entire property the value of which is considerably in excess of rs. 20,000.we do not think this contention is sound. in --- 'bai shevantibai v. janardhan raghunath , the privy council held that a question as to the title of the plaintiff to the share which he claimed in the joint property did not become a question respecting the whole of the joint family estate merely because if his title is established it would result in the joint family estate being partitioned. a fortiori a claim to a one-fourth share in certain property will not have that result if the establishment of the plaintiff's claim does not involve partition.3. the suit out of which this application for leave to appeal arises was instituted on 7-7-1949, that is before the commencement of the constitution, but the decrees of the trial court and of the lower appellate court as well as the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1955 (HC)

State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Makund Lal Sarraf

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-01-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All383; [1956]7STC579(All)

mootham, c.j. 1. this is an appeal from an order of chaturvedi j. dated 30-11-1954. the respondent firm is a dealer in bullion and in gold and silver ornaments, and as part of its business it entered into forward contracts in silver. in respect of such contracts it was assessed to sales tax for the years 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1950-51 in the sums of rs. 150/12/-, rs. 474/- and 741/- a total of rs. 1,365/12/- and these amounts were duly paid. in 1952 this court held in -- 'budh prakash jai prakash v. sales tax officer, kanpu : air1952all764 , that the provisions of the u. p. sales tax act purporting to impose a sales tax on forward contracts were ultra vires -- a decision later upheld by the supreme court in the --'sales tax officer pilibhit v. budh prakash jai prakash : [1955]1scr243 -- and thereupon the respondent firm applied to the commissioner of sales tax u. p., for a refund of the aforesaid sum of rs. 1,365/12/-. a refund was refused, and the respondent firm filed the petition out of which this appeal arises praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus requiring the sales tax officer, the commissioner of sales tax and the state government to refund the sum of rs. 1,365/12/-. before the learned judge the liability of the state government to repay this amount does not seem to have been seriouslyopposed, and the writ sought for, was directed toissue. 2. the opposite parties to the petition now appeal, and it is argued by the advocate general of their behalf that the amount in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 1955 (HC)

W.O. Holdsworth and ors. Vs. State of U.P. Through Commr. of Agricultu ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-06-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All392

mootham, c.j.1. this is an application under article 133(1) of the constitution for leave to appeal to the supreme court from a judgment of this court dated 19-4-1955, answering adversely to the applicants a reference made to it by the revision board under section 24 of the united provinces agricultural income-tax act, 1948.2. the applicants had been assessed to agricultural income-tax under that act, and an appealmade by them under section 21 of the act against theorder of the assessing authority had been dismissed.sub-section (2) of section 24 provides that in such circumstances an assessee may within the time prescribedand upon payment of the requisite fee apply to therevision board to refer to the high court anyquestion of law arising out of the appellate order,and sub-section (7) so far as it is relevant, then providesthat'the high court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions of law raised thereby and shall send to the revision board a copy of such judgment under the seal) of the court and the signature of the registrar; and the revision board shall dispose of the case accordingly ........'3. now an appeal will lie to the supreme court under article 133(1) only from 'a judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding' of a high court, and the preliminary question arises whether the pronouncement of this court is 'a judgment .......... in a civil proceeding' within the meaning of that clause.we have not had the advantage of hearing arguments on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 1955 (HC)

M.M. Siddique Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Railway Dept.) Through General ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-22-1955

Reported in : AIR1955All568

mootham, c.j. 1. this is an appeal from a judgment and decree of a learned judge of this court dated 6-12-1954.2. the appellant was a clerk in the east indian railway employed in the office of the divisional superintendent, lucknow. in march 1948 complaint was made against him that he had committed certain rationing offences; an enquiry was held by the railway authorities as a result of which the appellant was suspended and charges were framed against him. that was in september 1948. the appellant submitted an explanation, but the divisional superintendent found the charges to be proved and by an order dated 20-10-1948, he directed that the appellant be removed from service.3-4. on 22-10-1948, the appellant was accordingly served with a notice in the following term:'removal notice as your services are no longer required by the the administration, you are hereby removed from service by my order in terms of your agreement and condition of service, and you are hereby given one month's pay in lieu of notice with effect from 25-10-1948 an as provided for therein. your services will accordingly terminate on 25-10-1948 a. n.......'this notice was signed by the divisional superintendent, lucknow. the appellant appealed against this order to the chief operating superintendent, but without success. on 5-9-1949, he filed a suit for a declaration that the order was void and that he was still in the service of the railway administration; he also sought a decree for rs. 1,395-7- as salary .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //