Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 1955 Page 6 of about 277 results (0.022 seconds)

Jul 21 1955 (HC)

Nathumal Vs. Mohd. Nazir Beg and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-21-1955

Reported in : AIR1955All584

mootham, c.j. 1. this is an appeal, by leave, from a judgment o learned judge of this court dated 5-12-1947. 2. on 24-1-1941, the appellant purchased from one kailash chand the latter's two-thirds share of a house. thereafter the appellant brought a suit against the respondents for partition of his two-thirds share. the suit was contested, the second respondent's defence being that he was the owner of kailash chand's two-thirds share, having purchased that share at two sales in execution of two decrees obtained against kailash chand, then a minor. he purchased a half share on 5-4-1939, and the remaining one-sixth share on 16-8-1940. in answer to this defence the appellant averred that the decrees on the basis of which the sales to the second respondent were effected were void, as kailash chand was not properly represented in the suits. it is common ground that kailash chand was a major on 24-1-1941, the date of the conveyance to the appellant. 3. we are concerned in this appeal only with the validity of the acquisition by the second respondent, on 5-4-1939, of the minor's half share. 4. the decree was passed ex parte by a revenue court on 14-11-1938, and the lower courts have, found not only that service of notice on the proposed guardian was defective but that no order had been made by the court under order 32, rule 3 appointing a guardian for the suit for the minor. 'the whole case', in the words of the learned district judge, 'was conducted with complete indifference to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 1955 (HC)

Jagjit Singh Vs. District Magistrate, Kanpur and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-21-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All486

mootham, c.j. 1. i agree, but as we are differing from bhargava j. i desire to state briefly my reasons for so doing.2. the two important questions in this case are, firstly, whether the proviso which appears at the foot of sub-section (1) of section 7-a is limited in its application to that sub-section, and, secondly, whether the rent control and eviction officer could by his order dated 22-12-1952, revoke his earlier order of the 6-11-1952.3. the proviso is in these terms:'provided that no order under this section shall be passed if the district magistrate is satisfied that there has been undue delay or it is otherwise inexpedient to do so.'the proviso in terms empowers the district magistrate to refrain from passing any order which he is empowered to make under section 7-a if he think it inexpedient to do so, and the only difficulty in giving full effect to the proviso is due to the fact that it has been placed after sub-section (1). i do not however think that this is a sufficient reason for restraining the application of the proviso to order which the district magistrate is empowered to make under that sub-section.it appears to me that the necessity for vesting the district magistrate with a discretion as to whether an order should be made is no less strong in the case of orders which he make under sub-sections (2) and (3) than it is in respect of orders under sub-section (1). indeed it would appear more necessary, that he should have a discretion in deter mining whether .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 1955 (HC)

Upper Ganges Electric Employees Union Vs. Upper Ganges Valley Electric ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-08-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All491

mootham, c.j. 1. this is an appeal from a judgment of bhargava j. dated 20-1-1955, dismissing a petition under article 226 of the constitution. the circumstances in which the petition was filed can be stated shortly.2. on 8-11-1949, one g. e. arratoon was appointed a general assistant on probation by the upper ganges valley electricity supply co. ltd., the first respondent. on 3-4-1951 arratoon was dismissed by the respondent company with effect from 1-6-1951.arratoon had however in the meantime become a member of the appellant union which took up his case and, on 16-4-1951, applied to the regional conciliation officer for a settlement of the dispute which had arisen in regard to his dismissal. the regional conciliation officer was not able to effect a settlement and he accordingly reported the matter to the state government which by a notification dated 5-12-1951, referred to the state industrial tribunal the following questions:whether the services of sri g. e. arratoon have been wrongly terminated? if so, to what relief, if any, is he entitled?3. before this tribunal the respondent company contended that there was no industrial dispute as arratoon was not a workman but an officer of the company. on 10-2-1952 the state industrial tribunal delivered its award. it held that arratoon was an officer and not a workman, but that nevertheless there existed an industrial dispute as it was of opinion that it was not necessary that the person whose dismissal was the cause of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 22 1955 (HC)

Jokhi Ram and anr. Vs. Sardar Singh and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-22-1955

Reported in : AIR1955All661

agarwala, j. 1. this is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for possession over certain property and recovery of 'damages. the only question in the appeal is whether the plaintiffs' suit was barred by order 2, rule 2, civil p. c. the following pedigree will be useful in understanding the facts of the case: sheo baran singh ______________________________|___________ | | | nabbo singh kedar singh= lochan singh= | mst. chameli mst. larehti | d.4 | | | | ______|_____________ | | | | | |budha singh tikam singh | | d.5 d.6 | | ____________|__________________ | | | | lakhan sing sardar singh | p.2 p.1 | _______________ |________________ | | hukam singh hakim singh p. 4 p. 32. sheo baran singh was the owner of 21/2 biswa share in patti sheo baran singh. appertaining to this share he had some sir land. on 23-11-1921 he made a gift of his zamindari share and the sir land to the three branches of his sons but in unequal shares. to lakhan singh and sardar singh plaintiffs 1 and 2 and their mother srimati chameli he gave 15 biswansis share, to, budha singh, and tikam, singh, defendants 5 and 6 and nabbo singh defceased their father he gave 15 biswansis share, and to shrimati larehti, wife ,of lochan singh and mother of hakim singh and hukam singh, plaintiffs 3 and 4, he gave one biswa share. 3. on 2-7-1924, nabbo singh and his sons, budha singh and tikam singh sold 8 biswansis zamindari share out of the 15 biswansis which they obtained under the aforesaid deed of gift to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 1955 (HC)

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Abdul Aziz and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-06-1955

Reported in : AIR1955All673

mootham, c.j. 1. this is in form an appeal from an order of the learned civil judge of rae bareli dated 15-4-1953. 2. on 29-5-1952. the first respondent filed a suit against the state government, the assistant engineer, public works department, and two other persons. his principal claim in this suit was for the recovery of a substantial sum of money from the state government as damages for the alleged breach of a contract entered into by him with the state government on 25-2-1948, where under he was to supply 50,000 c. ft. of kanpur lime to the government at a certain price. the other reliefs sought by the plaintiff were not related to the claim founded on the alleged breach of the contract dated 25-2-1948, and with these reliefs we are not now directly concerned. 3. on 6-10-1952, the first and second defendants filed what purported to be an application under ss, 32 and 34 of the arbitration act. they contended that under clause 23 of the contract entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant all disputes arising out' of the contract were to be referred to the deputy chief superintending engineer for the time being 'whose decision would be final, and that the deputy chief superintending engineer had in fact considered and rejected the plaintiff's claim. in these circumstances the defendants submitted that the suit was not maintainable under section 32 of the arbitration act, and that under section 34 of the same act it was incumbent upon them to apply for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 1955 (HC)

Ramzan Baksh and anr. Vs. NizamuddIn and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-30-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All687

mootham, c.j.1. this is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the additional civil judge, bijnor, dismissing an appeal from the judgment and decree of the munsif of bijnor in a suit for partition.2. the dispute between the parties relates to certain property which belonged to one tafazzul hussain. after tafazzul husain's death one of his heirs sold his undivided share in the property to the first appellant. sometime thereafter the respondents, who are the remaining heirs, instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for partition of the entire property. they claimed that they were entitled under section 4 of the partition act, 1893, to include in the property the subject of the suit the share of the first appellant upon payment to him of the value of his share.the appellant raised several defences. he contended, first, that after the death of tafazzul husain the heirs partitioned the latter's property and that he had acquired the share which had been allotted to his vendor in this partition; alternatively he denied that section 4 of the partition act had any application as the property in which he had acquired a share was not a dwelling house, and because he had not himself sued for partition.3. the lower appellate court has found as a fact that there was no previous partition, and that finding has not been challenged before us.4. the lower appellate court has not dealt with the question whether the property in which the first appellant acquired an undivided share .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 1955 (HC)

District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Rahat HusaIn and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-21-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All112

mootham, c.j. 1. this is an appeal by the respondent from an order of a learned single judge dated 12-11-1954, partially allowing a writ petition. 2. the petition arose out of a dispute between two societies registered under the co-operative societies act, 1912, namely the district co-operative bank ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the bank') and the postal union co-operative society ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the postal union'). the postal union was in the practice of making loans to its members, and to enable it to do so it obtained advances from time to time from the bank. a dispute arose between the bank and the postal union as to the amount due by the latterto the former, and this dispute was referred to the registrar, co-operative societies, who appointed an arbitrator. we do not know the terms of reference, but it is conceded that thedispute was one which fell within clause (iv) of rule 115 of the rules made under the act, that is a dispute 'between two or more registered societies'. the arbitrator, however, issued notice not only to the postal union but to the members of that society who were alleged to be persons to whom it had made loans which had not been repaid. 3. on 24-2-1952, the arbitrator pronounced his award, the award being in two parts, namely a judgment followed by a decision which reads as follows: 'this case has come up before me for arbitration under the order of the assistant registrar co-operative societies, u.p., allahabad. i heard case, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 1955 (HC)

Narendra Singh Vs. the State

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-13-1955

Reported in : 1957CriLJ243

ranawat, j. 1. this is a criminal reference by the additional sessions judge of bundi, dated the 29th january, 1955.2. a case under section 395, i. p, c., is pending inquiry in the court of the sub-divisional magistrate, bundi, on a police report. one of the accused, namely, narendra singh was also an accused in that case. but he was shown as absconding by the police and he appeared before the sub-divisional magistrate subsequently, a test identification was then arranged and the prosecution witnesses failed to identify him.thereafter, the prosecution moved the magistrate for arranging another identification parade on the ground that in the previous proceedings the faces of the accused were so hid that the witnesses could not possibly identify them. the learned magistrate turned down the request. the prosecution then moved the district magistrate who ordered the sub-divisional magistrate to reconduct the identification proceedings for narendra singh.the learned district magistrate assumed that in the previous identification proceedings the faces of the accused were so hid as not to allow a fair opportunity to the witnesses to identify the accused. the accused then went to the additional sessions judge, bundi and it was urged on his behalf that the district magistrate had no jurisdiction to interfere in the judicial discretion of the sub-divisional magistrate in asking him to arrange a fresh identification parade when the magistrate had already turned down such a request.the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1955 (HC)

The Madras Provincial Type Foundry Workers' Union Vs. Ramalinga Mudali ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-07-1955

Reported in : AIR1957Mad68; (1956)IMLJ295

rajamannar, c.j.1. these are petitions seeking to revise the order of the learned chief judge of the court of small causes dismissing four appeals filed before him under section 17, payment of wages act against orders of the commissioner for workmen's compensation passed on applications made by a workers' union under section 15(2) payment of wages act against proprietors of certain foundries. the claim was for recovery of bonus alleged to be due and payable to the workers under an agreement between them and the proprietors.the commissioner held that the bonus claimed by the petitioners would not fall within the definition of 'wages' in section 2(vi), payment of wages act and therefore the petitions under section 15 of the act were not sustainable, as the subject-matter was not covered by the act. on this ground the petitions were rejected. appeals were filed against these orders by the union to the court of small causes at madras. a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the proprietors that the appeals were not maintainable under section 17 of the act. the learned judge upheld the preliminary objection and held that the appeals were not maintainable and dismissed them. hence the above revision petitions.2. section 17, payment of wages act runsthus: '17. appeal - (1) an appeal against a direction made under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of section 15 may be preferred, within 30 days of the date on which the direction was made, in a presidency-town before the court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 1955 (HC)

A.V. Subramaniam, by Partner A.V. Subramania Mudaliar Vs. Ramachandra ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-21-1955

Reported in : (1956)2MLJ64

rajagopala ayyangar, j.1. the plaintiff is the petitioner in this revision. he filed an application j.a. no. 1958 of 1951 under order 6, rule 17 and section 151, civil procedure code, for the amendment of the cause title in the plaint and the judgment and decree in respect of o.s. no. 417 of 1948 on the file of the district munsif's court of erode which he brought for the recovery of rs. 2861-2-0 and in which he obtained a decree. but the application has been dismissed and the revision is against this order.2. the facts necessary to understand the points lie in a very brief compass. the plaintiff is a firm carrying on business under the name and style of a.v. subramaniam. this firm had certain transactions in turmeric with a person carrying on business under the name and style of 'ramachandra behari lal' at aligarh. there were notices which preceded the suit and as the person trading in the name of ramachandra behari lal did not comply with the demands of the plaintiff, o.s. no. 417 of 1948 was filed on 27th july, 1948, against 'ramachandra behari lal' who was described in the plaint as 'ramachandra behari lal, father's name not known, carrying on business at aligarh'. several notices were taken out through court to the defendant and all of them were returned unserved with the endorsement that there was no person of that name at aligarh. finally the learned district munsif directed fresh service and notice by registered post by an order, dated 15th november, 1948. such a .....

Tag this Judgment!


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