Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: medical degrees act 1916 section 2 definitions Court: allahabad Year: 1963 Page 2 of about 43 results (0.172 seconds)

May 22 1963 (HC)

Mangal Prasad Vs. Lachhman Prasad

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-22-1963

Reported in : AIR1964All108

..... , and shall be governed by, the other provisions of this act so far as they can be made applicable.' 18. a perusal of section 20 of the act would indicate that sub-section (1) of section 20 defines the conditions necessary for filing an application in court. sub-section (2) relates to the form o the application, sub-section (3) provides for the issue of notice by the ..... done practically nothing in the case. as i have already observed above, it is not correct to say that the criterion for that determination of the question should be the degree or the amount of work done by the arbitrator.49. the last case to which reference might be 'made is the case of : air1956all377 . this was a case in which ..... the proceedings. whether or not the arbitrator was right in supposing that in these circumstances he had no authority to continue to act, is a matter with which we are not concerned. the fact remains that he definitely refused to act and that at the time this application was filed under para 17, his refusal was still in force......... the result therefore is ..... that we have before us an application to enforce an agreement to refer a dispute to the arbitration of a gentleman who had already decline to act, and in these circumstances we .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 1963 (HC)

Nagar Mahapalika of Kanpur Vs. Sri Ram and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-08-1963

Reported in : AIR1964All270; 1964CriLJ626

..... the result of analysis, namely, data from which it can be inferred whether the article of food was or was not adulterated as defined in section 2(1) of the act. we find no reason to depart from that view. in fact, we are in respectful agreement with the law as laid down in the ..... s. d. kapoor. this was sufficient to prove that the complaint was made by the medical officer of health of the nagar mahapalika of kanpur, a person duly authorised by the state government under section 20(1) of the act, and the magistrate rightly took cognizance thereof. but if the learned sessions judge felt hesitant ..... be entertained by the magistrates of kanpur. however, as already mentioned above, the designation was wrongly noted, and the complainant was referred to as the 'medical officer of health of the municipal board, kanpur'. the matter in controversy is thus a simple one; are the courts of law competent to take cognizance of ..... was of opinion that on the day the complaint was submitted to the magistrate there was no municipal board of kanpur and there, could be no medical officer of health of a nonexistent body like the municipal board of kanpur. reliance was placed upon the form of the complaint without reading it as ..... in full at a later stage while considering whether such a report is admissible in evidence.3. on receipt of the public analyst's report the medical officer of health submitted the complaint (ex. ka-5) to the magistrate ist class, kanpur, on the basis of which the respondent was tried .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 1963 (HC)

Shree Ram Vs. Ratanlal

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-05-1963

Reported in : AIR1965All83

..... transaction, no question of mutuality arises. the appellant's promise to re-convey the land is based on consideration. this consideration may be a promise for a promise or an act already performed in return for a promise. in the latter case the promise is enforceable because the promisor has already received consideration for it.9. it is true that to ..... being treated as a mortgage. this vei'sion is corroborated by the broker (radhey shyam p. w. 3) who arranged the transaction and by the scribe (kishan chand p. w. 2) who wrote out the two agreements. they both deposed that the parties discussed the nature of the transaction in their presence and the agreement was that the appellant would pay ..... specific performance. both sides led evidence in support of their respective versions. the plaintiff gave evidence himself and produced the scribe who wrote out the agreement (kishan chand p. w. 2) and the broker who is alleged to have arranged the transaction between the parties (radhey shyam nilam p. w. 3). he also produced one dhani ram who is alleged to ..... notice in reply to which the latter repudiated the agreement completely and wrote that it was not binding on him. thereupon the plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance. 2. the defendant resisted the suit. he admitted having executed the agreement to re-convey the land but he gave his own version of the circumstances in which he signed it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1963 (HC)

Chatur Mohan and ors. Vs. Ram Behari Dixit

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-29-1963

Reported in : AIR1964All562

..... deals with the local limits of the jurisdiction of the civil courts, and indeed sub-section (1) expressly empowers the state government to determine 'the local limits of the jurisdiction of any civil court under this act'. when sub-sections (2) and (3) of the same section speak of the local jurisdiction assigned to munsifs and civil judges, they in fact refer to the jurisdiction ..... of the civil courts over which they preside. sections 14, 15, 16 and 17 are provisions which plainly refer to courts. when ..... court from their decision when hearing the appeal they exercised jurisdiction of the supreme court and not as an independent and supervisory authority over the board. evatt j referred to medical board of victoria v. meyer. 56 clr 62 which deserts the theory that while a jurisdiction is conferred upon 'a judge of the supreme court' it is distinguishable from that ..... and jurisdiction conferred upon an existing court reference may be made to r v. southampton licensing justices, (1906) 1 kb 446, and colchester brewing co ltd. v. tendring licensing justices, (1916) 2 kb 126. swinfen eday l. j. observed in the latter case at page 131:'where a new jurisdiction is given to a court, prima facie that court is to exercise .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 1963 (HC)

Mulk Raj Malhotra Vs. Thakat Mal Sethi and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-28-1963

Reported in : AIR1965All72

..... of the learned additional tribunal judge of dehradun dated 20th august 1956 returning the application of the petitioner appellant filed under section 5 of the displaced persons (debts adjustment) act, 1951, act no. 70 of 1951, for presentation to the proper court.2. the appellant, mulak raj, claiming himself to be a displaced debtor within the meaning of displaced persons (debts adjustment ..... ) act 1951, hereinafter referred to as the act, filed an application under section 5 of the act in the court of the civil judge, dehradun ..... who was invested with the powers of the tribunal under section 4 of the act. the application ..... so. but we may mention that the considerations which might be applicable for interpreting the meaning of the word 'resides' in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 33 of the registration act which is a provision for the specific purpose of giving jurisdiction to a registrar for registering a particular document, may not mutatis mutand is apply for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 1963 (HC)

R.N. Srivastava Vs. Ghan Shyam Das and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-22-1963

Reported in : AIR1964All18

..... the ejectment of the tenant under any one of the clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the aforesaid act, he will have to determine the lease under section 106 of the transfer of property act first. on the same reasoning even the tenant, who wants to vacate the premises, will have to ..... determine the lease in accordance with the provisions of section 106 of the transfer of property act, by giving 30 days' notice to the landlord, and also vacating the accommodation within the same period. even sending a copy of the ..... he filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent.3. the contention on behalf of the applicant was that it is section 7 (1) of the control of rent and eviction act which lays down the law for determination of a lease at the instance of the tenant and that the applicant having given ..... ghan shyam das filed the suit for the recovery of arrears of rent against the applicant rule n. srivastava and also against amminuddin siddiqi, opposite party no. 2, who is said to be a sub-tenant in the same accommodation. the trial court dismissed the suit, but it was decreed in revision by the additional ..... district judge, allahabad.2. the point involved in the case is a simple one. the applicant's contention is that when he vacated the house on 1st july, 1961, he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 1963 (HC)

Ram Krishna Barman Vs. Mohan Lal Sahgal and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-09-1963

Reported in : AIR1965All10

..... plaintiff cannot possibly ask the court to execute the decree, and that being so the suit fell within the ambit of article 17 (iii) of schedule ii, and not section 7(ii)(a) of the court fees act.the learned senior standing counsel conceded that he was unable to point out any single case decided by any high court wherein it may have been ..... different meaning to the expression 'for' occurring in clause (iv-a), from the meaning which should be given to the same expression 'for' in clauses (i), (ii) (a) and (iii) occurring in section 7 of the act if the expression 'suits for money' should be construed as confined to suits for recovery of money, we see no reason why the expression 'decree for ..... .; lal dhananjay singh v. lal bhim bikram singh, reported in : air1953all442 , it was held that section 7(ii) has no application to a suit for a bare declaration of the plaintiffi right to receive arrears of pension or periodlcal payment. in future to which the pensions act applies. the view taken was that such a suit was governed by article 17 (iii) of ..... b.d. gupta, j.1. this is a plaintiff's appeal, under section 6-a of the court fees act, against an order directing him to pay additional court feet on the plaint giving rise to suit no 14 of 1956 in the court of civil judge, jaunpur.2. it appears that one babu durga prasad who owns considerable property, died leaving a widow .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 02 1963 (HC)

Shri Nath and anr. Vs. Smt. Saraswati Devi Jaiswal

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-02-1963

Reported in : AIR1964All52

..... the accommodation to which the suit relates. the only question which was pressed in this second appeal relates to the validity of the notice. the notice under section 106 of the transfer of property act was sent to both the tenants under one registered cover, the names of both the tenants being mentioned as addressees over the same. the registered cover was ..... was also one of the addressees), even he may be presumed to have constructive knowledge of the contents of the sealed or closed envelope. the notice under section 106 of me transfer of property act will, therefore, be deemed to have been duly served on both the tenants.4. this appeal has no force and is consequently dismissed under order 41, rule ..... contention on behalf of the appellants was that the notice was never tendered to the other tenant and there was, therefore, no service of the notice under section 106 of the transfer of property act on him. so far as this aspect of the case is concerned, the point is fully covereo by the decision of this court in liladhar pandey v ..... addressed to all the joint lessees, but is served only on one of them, there is sufficient compliance with the provisions of the transfer of property act, and i agree with respect, with that view.2. the second point urged on behalf of the appellants was that the notice was sent by the landlord not on a post card, but in a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 13 1963 (HC)

Sarju Vs. the State

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jun-13-1963

Reported in : AIR1964All6; 1964CriLJ23

..... 25th august, 1962 are void and cannot be cured by any provision of law. it has been contended that the provisions of section 19(f) were not saved by the saving section 46(2) of the arms act, 54 of 1959 or sections 6 and 24 of the general clauses act. another objection was raised in paragraph 4 of the application for revision that sanction under ..... the day on which it receives the assent only where it is not expressed to come into operation on a particular day. in the case of the arms act, 54 of 1959, it was definitely expressed to come into force on such date as the central government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint. the 'particular day' for the purposes of ..... this act was the date as the central government was to appoint. the legislature had delegated the power of appointing the date to the central government and so the date ..... 1959 does not take away the effect of the conviction of the applicant which had already been recorded on 25th august, 1962. section 6 of the general clauses act, 10 of 1897, lays down:'6. where this act, or any centra] act .,,.., repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a 'different intention appears the repeal shall not- (a) ....... (b .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 18 1963 (HC)

Bharat Prasad Vs. Paras Singh and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-18-1963

Reported in : AIR1964All15

..... on the ground that the amount due from hardeo singh had been paid off by him, and that the present suit was barred by section 69 of the partnership-act as well as section, 130 of the transfer of property act.2. the trial court repelled all the three pleas-of the defendants, and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for rs. 1,448/15 ..... the learned counsel for the respondents was that the present suit was barred by section 69(1) of the partnership act. this argument seems to ignore the provisions of section 69(3) of the indian parntership act. sub-section (3) of section 69 provides that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 69 shall not apply to enforce any right to realise the property of a ..... been seriously challenged at any stage in view of the admission made by defendant no. 4. under the circumstances the present suit will not be barred by section 69(1) of the indian partnership act. further, the firm having been dissolved the present suit cannot be said to have been filed by i or on behalf of the firm. it is, therefore ..... of his pre-existing right as a partner. such a transaction is not hit by the provisions of section 130 of the transfer of property act. reference in this connection may be made to the case of shanmugha mudaliar v. p. v. rathina mudaliar 1947-2 mad lj 241 : (air 1948 mad 187).8. for the above reasons, i am of the opinion .....

Tag this Judgment!

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