Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: allahabad Year: 1955 Page 4 of about 70 results (0.015 seconds)

Aug 17 1955 (HC)

Jagannath Prasad and ors. Vs. Mst. Ram Dularey and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-17-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All63

agarwala, j.1. this is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of rs. 10,000/- from the defendants respondents. the facts, briefly stated, are as follows:2. one baijnath, brother of sheo prasad, plaintiff appellant 2, and father of plaintiff appellant 1 and one janki prasad, husband of smt. ram dulari defendant respondent 3, were close relations. baijnath, according to the plaintiffs appellants, was a member of a joint hindu family along with the other plaintiffs and used to 'deposit' at different times, various sums of money with janki prasad. janki prasad used to carry on money-lending business on an extensive scale.he used to advance money to various debtors and on one occasion on 30-7-1920 he obtained a mortgage deed from two persons, mohammad askari and agha ali for a sum of rs. 9000/-. the amount was not paid by the mortgagors and both janki prasad and baijnath filed a suit on the basis of the mortgage and obtained a decree and the mortgaged property was sold and a sum of rs. 14,850/- was deposited in court on 4-6-1921.there was a dispute between baijnath and janki prasad about the ownership of the mortgage money, and baijnath filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that he alone owned the mortgage money and that therefore the decree passed in the suit was executable by him alone and not by janki prasad whose name was entered in the mortgage deed and in the suit as a benamidar. some other property was also in dispute in this case & a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 1955 (HC)

Om Prakash Vs. State

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-20-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All241; 1956CriLJ452

beg, j.1. this is an appeal by om prakash, son of bahori singh, resident of village kantaur, p.s. marehra, district etah. the appellant has been convicted under section 302, i. p. g. by the learned sessions judge, etah, and sentenced to death. the reference for the confirmation of the death sentence is also before us.2. the appellant was charged answer section 302, read with section 34, i. p. c., along with two other persons, namely, lakhansingh and babusingh for having committed the murder of one sarnamsingh on 19-6-1054, at about 7 p.m. in village kantaur, babusingh and lakhansingh were acquitted by the trial court. the appellant, was, however, found guilty. he was convicted under section 302, i. p. c., and sentenced as above.3. the appellant om prakash and the deceased sarnamsingh were relations having descended from a common ancestor. the grand-father of the deceased sarnamsingh was one motisingh. bahorisingh, the father of the appellant om prakash, was the grandson of zorawar singh, the brother of motisingh. chandrapalsingh, who is a prosecution witness in the case, is the son of thakur das, a brother of bahorisingh, and is the first cousin of the appellant om prakash. sheodansingh, another prosecution witness, is the brother of the deceased and the uncle of the appellant om prakash.the appellant om prakash and the deceased sarnamsingh used to reside in the same house in village kantaur. the appellant used to stay away from the village as he was carrying on his studies .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 1955 (HC)

Abdul Qadeer Vs. Municipal Board, Moradabad and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-07-1955

Reported in : AIR1955All414

agarwala, j. 1. this is an appeal from an order refusing to grant an injunction. sri abdul qadeer is at present the president of the municipal board, moradabad. a motion of no-confidence is going to be moved against him apparently upon a requisition by a majority of the members of the municipal board and in pursuance of that motion certain proceedings as required by the municipalities act are being taken. the appellant filed a suit in the court of the civil judge, moradabad for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the defendant who are the municipal board, moradabad, through the vice-president, the members of the board, the district magistrate of moradabad and the additional sessions judge of moradabad from holding any meeting on 8-2-1955. on the date on which the plaint was filed an application for the issue of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from moving a no-confidence motion against him and holding the meeting on the 8th february was made. this application has been rejected & the present appeal is against that order. 2. the only ground stated in the application for the issue of a temporary injunction was that some of the members had been coerced into signing the no-confidence motion and the resolution submitted was no resolution in the eye of law. 3. there are two essential considerations which should weigh with the court in deciding applications like this. one is that a prima facie case should have been satisfactorily made out and the second .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 1955 (HC)

Ram Kirpal Chhakkar and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the Min ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-12-1955

Reported in : AIR1955All468

m.l. chaturvedi, j. 1. these four writ petitions do not indicate the provision of law under which they have been made, but the cases have been argued on the assumption that these petitions have been made under article 226 of the constitution and they will be dealt with as such. 2. the different petitioners in all these petitions were on the roll of civilian staff of the defence ministry, government of india, and were serving under the central ordnance depot., agra, they were previously discharged from service, but were afterwards either reinstated or re-employed, and in juno 1953 they were working under the ordnance depot. there appears to have been a difference of opinion as regards the status and emoluments of the petitioners between the ministry of defence, government of india, and the audit department. ultimately the union of india, by their letter dated 26-6-1953, communicated their decision to the effect that some of the personnel would be regarded as 'reinstated', some as 're-employed' and certain others were kept under consideration. the petitioners had been treated as having been re-employed. the petitioners sent representations objecting to their being treated as re-employed personnel, but the representations proved to be of no avail. the present petitions were filed on 2-12-1953 and the main prayers contained in them are that this court may issue writs or orders quashing the order of the union of india dated 26-6-1953 in so far as it relates to the petitioners, and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 09 1955 (HC)

Chandra Kishore and anr. Vs. Smt. Hemlata Gupta

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-09-1955

Reported in : AIR1955All611

ordermukerji, j.1. this is a revision which has been filed by sri chandra kishore and sri sohan lal against an order of the district judge of saharanpur, exercising jurisdiction over dehra dun area, holding that an application made by srimati hemlata gupta for her appointment as a guardian of her two minor children was maintainable in his court.2. srimati hemlata, the opposite party, was married to chandra kishore some years ago. this marriage produced two children rakhesh, aged about four and a half years, and gambhir, aged about two years and a few months. chandra kishore belongs to meerut and has the permanent residence at that place. after the marriage the young couple resided in meerut, and the children, after their birth, also resided with their parents at meerut.unfortunately, the husband and the wife started having differences, so much so that hemlata, the wife, decided to leave her husband's residence to go and live with her parents who resided at dehra dun. on 1-10-1953, hemlata, with her two little sons left meerut to arrive at dehra dun with the object of staying there with her parents.the departure of hemlata with her children caused some amount of consternation in the family, with the result that hcmlata's father-in-law came to dehra dun and some how was able to return to meerut with his two grandsons. the father-in-law returned to meerut with the children on the 2nd, namely the same day that he had gone to dehra dun. on 3-10-1953, hemlata made the application .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 1955 (HC)

Haji Mohd. Sayeed and ors. Vs. Abdul Ghafoor and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-05-1955

Reported in : AIR1955All688

beg, j. 1. this is a plaintiff's second appeal. it arises out of a suit for injunction and some other reliefs. the suit was brought in a representative capacity against a number of defendants who were also sued in a representative capacity. both the plaintiffs as well as the defendants are muhammedans residing in the town of mail nath bhanjan in the district of azamgarh. it appears that among the muhammedans of this town strained relations have existed between the two sects of sunni muslims -- one calling itself ahl-e-hadis and the other calling itself hanafi.the former sect is also nicknamed as wahabi by the latter. the present suit marks the culmination of a long-standing dispute between them. there appear to be differences between the two sects in the mode of offering prayers and rituals connected therewith. it is said that the ahl-e-hadis recite the 'surai pateha' or the first chapter of the quran behind the imam in a loud tone, but the hanafis do not recite it.further it is said that the ahl-e-hadis pronounce the word 'amin' after 'surai fateha' in a loud tone, whereas the hanafis recite it in an inaudible or low tone. the ahl-e-hadis perform the gesture of 'rafu'ul-yadain' (raising of the, hands) when pronouncing the takbir, viz., the words 'allaho akbar' (god is great) and also every time before bending during the prayers, whereas the hanafis raise their hands during 'takbir only once and not higher than the ears.during the prayers the ahl-e-hadis fasten their hands .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 1955 (HC)

Bhagwan Das Barnwal Vs. State and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-17-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All213

ordermehrotra, j.1. the applicant was elected as president of the municipal board. mirzapur in the general elections held in october, 1953. on 17-1-1955, a notice of intention to move a no confidence motion against the applicant was made to the district magistrate of mirzapur. 17-2-1955, was fixed for the meeting for the consideration of the no-confidence motion. the motion was voted and lost. the meeting was presided over by the civil judge.two of the members of the board alleged that they were forcibly abducted and detained and consequently could not participate in the meeting for no-confidence held, on 17-2-1955. investigation was started against the applicant by the police on the statement of the two members. on 1-3-1965 at about 3:00 p.m. the applicant received a communication from the district magistrate, mirzapur purporting to contain the charge-sheet against the applicant. he was called upon to furnish an explanation to the charges.the charges indicated that the applicant was asked to explain the conduct which was considered as an act of gross misconduct in the discharge of his duties as president of the board by the government. on the same date an order of the governor suspending the applicant with immediate effect dated 25-2-1955 was communicated to the applicant. a petition under article 226 of the constitution was filed challenging the aforesaid order of the state government as well as the order of suspension passed by the governor and was finally allowed by this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 1955 (HC)

President, Municipal Board Shahjahanpur, Through Bishan Chandra Vs. Di ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-17-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All369

ordermehrotra, j.1. sri bishanchandra seth, the applicant in the two petitions, was elected president of the municipal board, shahjahanpur at the general election held in november, 1953. the candidate, who was defeated by the petitioner, was the chairman of the board for a long time before the election of the applicant. he has in the present board organised the opposition party and a number of efforts were made by the opposition to oust the petitioner from the office of the presidentship.a notice for motion of no-confidence was given to the district magistrate, against the applicant. the motion was, however, subsequently lost. after the proceedings for no-confidence were over, it 10 alleged by the petitioner that in the ordinary course he tabled the revised budget of the board for the year 1954-55 as also the original budget; for the year 1955-5s on 21-3-1955, for the examination and inspection of the members of the board..a meeting of the board for the purpose of passing the budget was fixed for 29-3-1955 at 3.00 p.m. some of the members of the opposition group approached the district magistrate, shahjahanpur and made certain complaints against the petitioner. the petitioner was informed on 28-3-1955 that the district magistrate, shahjahanpur on the complaint made by some of the members, had directed the city magistrate, shahjahanpur to attend and supervise the meeting of the board, which was going to be held on 29-3-1955.thereupon the applicant wrote a letter to thedistrict .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1955 (HC)

Basant NaraIn Pandey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-24-1955

Reported in : (1955)IILLJ754All

agarwala, j.1. this is a special appeal against the judgment of mr. justice mootham, as his lordship then was, refusing to issue the writs prayed for by the appellant in the writ application moved by him in this court. the appellant was a commercial clerk in the service of the northern railway. he was a temporary employee subject to the terms of the contract executed on 21 february 1949. one of the terms of the contract was that his services could be terminated on fourteen days' notice. a charge was framed against him for misconduct but later on it was given up and his services were not terminated because of the alleged misconduct but because 'his services were no longer required by the administration' and he was removed from service in terms of the conditions of service giving fourteen days' pay in lieu of notice. the order of dismissal was passed by the divisional superintendent, kanpur area, he appealed to the divisional superintendent northern railway, allahabad. his appeal was rejected. then he appealed to the general manager, but the general manager does not appear to have interfered. then he filed a writ application in this court impleading the union of india, the general manager, the divisional superintendent, allahabad, and the superintendent, kanpur area, as opposite parties. his application was contested by all the respondents thereby showing that they were in agreement with the order of dismissal. his application was dismissed on the ground that article 311 did .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 23 1955 (HC)

Hira Lal Patni Vs. Kali Nath

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-23-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All349

agarwala, j. 1. a certificate under article 133 of the constitution was granted in the above appeal on 9-9-1955. under rule 7 of order 45, civil p. c., the appellant was to deposit rs. 2,500/- as security within six weeks. on 4-11-1955, the applicant made an application for being allowed two weeks' further time within which to deposit the necessary security money. the application was ordered to be put up on 11-11-1955, for orders. on 11-11-1955, the applicant made an application that the money had been received, that he might be allowed to deposit the necessary security and that the delay may be condoned. this application was opposed by mr. kirti on behalf of the respondent. mr. hari swarup learned counsel for the appellant was permitted to deposit the security money in court, if deposited within 24 hours. the security, we are informed, was duly deposited on 12-11-1955. 2. mr. kirti, on behalf of the respondent, has urged that, firstly this court has no jurisdiction to grant further time to deposit the security and, secondly, that there is no sufficient reason to extend the time of six weeks allowed under order 45, rule 7, civil p. c. 3. as regards the preliminary objection that this court has no jurisdiction to grant further time to deposit the security amount, the relevant rules are rule 7 of order 45, civil p. c. & rule 3, supreme court rules, 1950. order 45, rule 7, prescribes a period of 90 days or such further period, not exceeding 60 days as the court may upon cause .....

Tag this Judgment!


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