Allahabad Court July 1931 Judgments
In Re: Chotay Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All83
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax made at the instance of one Rai Bahadur Chotay Lal, O.B.E., of Moradabad. It appears that the assessee, Rai Bahadur Lala Chotay Lal, was assessed at an income of Rs. 1,14,546. In determining the tax payable by him he was taken to be a Hindu undivided family and for that reason the first Rs. 25,000 of his income above the first Rs. 50,000, was not charged with any super tax. The assessment was to the best of the judgment of the Income-tax Officer under Section 23(4), Income-tax Act. The assessee, thereupon wanted to have the matter reviewed and he made an application under Section 27 in which he stated that he was an individual and not the head of an undivided family. The Income-tax Officer thereby found out his mistake for not charging any super tax on a sum of Rs. 25,000.2. The Income-tax Officer on 12th March 1930 issued a notice under Section 34, Income. tax Act read with Section 58, and asked for a fresh return. Th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Dr. Abinash Chandra Banerji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All262
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application by the surety for Dr. P.D. Banerji who was at one time appointed an administrator of the estate of his deceased father Dr. Abinash Chandra Banerji.2. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this application on the ground that there is no provision of law under which a surety can be discharged and the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the opposite party on the case of Kandhya Lai v. Manki [1909] 31 All. 56 but in that case the learned Judges did not expressly lay down that they had no jurisdiction to direct that a surety be discharged. They certainly held that he could not of his own free will withdraw from his suretyship and they also remarked that there was no express provision in the Probate and Administration Act. But that case is no authority for the proposition that the High Court to which the security bond is given has no power whatsoever to relieve ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Dr. Avinas Chandra Banerji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1931
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.127
1. This is an application by the surety for Dr. P.D. Banerji who was at one time appointed an administrator of the State of his deceased father Dr. Abinash Chandra Banerji.2. A preliminary objection is taken to the bearing of this application on the ground that there is no provision of law under which a surety can be discharged and the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the opposite party on the case of Kandhya Lal v. Manki 1 Ind. Cas. 143 : 31 A. 56 : 6 A.L.J. 19 : A.W.N. 1908 : 288 but in that case the learned Judges did not expressly lay down that they had no jurisdiction to direct that a surety be discharged. They certainly held that he could not of his own free will withdraw from his suretyship and they also remarked that there was no express provision in the Probate and Administration Act. But that case is no authority for the proposition that the High Court to which, the security bond is given has no pow...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rai Bahadur Chhotey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1931
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.77
1. This is a Reference by the Commissioner of Income Tax made at the instance of one Rai Bahadur Chhotey lal O.B.E. of Moradabad.2. It appears that the assessee Rai Bahadur Lala Chhotey lal was assessed at an income of Rs. 1,14,546. In determining the tax payable by him he was taken to be a Hindu undivided family and for that reason the first Rs. 25,000 of his income above the first Rs. 50,000 was not charged with any supertax. The assessment was to the best of the judgment of the Income-Tax Officer under Section 23(4) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee thereupon, wanted to have the matter reviewed and he made an application under Section 27, in which he stated that he was an individual and not the head of an undivided family. The Income tax Officer thereby found out his mistake for not charging any super tax on a sum of Rs. 25,000.3. The Income-tax Officer on the 12th of March. 1930, issued a notice under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act read with Section 58, and asked for a fresh re...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Official Receiver's Remuneration
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All260; 140Ind.Cas.111
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference by the Insolvency Judge of Agra, through the District Judge of the same place, as to what is the remuneration, which should be paid to the Official Receiver under the circumstances of this case.2. The circumstances are these: The insolvents owned property, which consisted of two houses and some moveables. The houses were subject to an encumbrance, presumably, simple mortgage of Rs. 2,500. The insolvents and the creditors and the mortgagee came to terms with the result that they agreed that the houses should be sold to the mortgagee for Rs. 3,500, that the mortgagee should pay three annas in the rupee to all the unsecured creditors of the insolvents and keep the balance for himself, in full satisfaction of the mortgage. It has been ascertained that this arrangement would enable the mortgagee to keep Rs. 3,125 for himself and he would be liable to pay Rs. 375 to the unsecured creditors.3. The remuneration of the Official Receiver has been fixed by a noti...
Tag this Judgment!Shakir HusaIn Vs. Chandoo Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All567
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. I concur in the conclusion, and would only add a few words because the question is one of general importance. No doubt there is some inconsistency between Order 21, Rule 43 and Rule 122 added by the High Court. The former requires that the attaching officer shall keep the property in his own custody or in the custody of one of his subordinates. The latter requires that he shall, subject to approval by the Court, make such arrangement as may be most convenient and economic. If the Court approves of it, he can certainly put the property in the custody of some one else other than a subordinate officer.2. Under Section 122, Civil P. C, the High Court has power to annul, alter or add to any of the rules in the first schedule. If a new rule that has been added is to some extent in conflict with the previous existing rule, I think the new rule must by implication be deemed to have annulled or altered that rule. The new rule, if not consistent with the old rule must prevai...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Chand Vs. L. Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All459
Smith, J.1. This is an application by a defendant-appellant asking for the abatement of his appeal, as against one of the respondents, to be set aside, the abatement being due to the fact that Eadhe Lal, the respondent in question, having died, no application had been made to bring his legal representatives on the record within the period of 90 days allowed by the Limitation Act. The application is made on the ground that the appellant was unaware, through no fault of his own, of the death of Radhe Lal. We have considered the three affidavits and heard counsel on the question of fact, and we are satisfied that the appellant has in this respect made out his case that he was ignorant of the death of Radhe Lal until the day he names when he heard of it, and that the respondent has been unable to make out a case that that ignorance was due to the negligence or to the deliberate omission of the appellant. It is next contended for the respondent that ignorance is no basis for extending the p...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Parshad Vs. Notified Area
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All598
Mukerji, J.1. This petition in revision is on behalf of Kashi Prasad, and is directed against the Notified Area of Mahoba, in the following circumstances. A certain piece of land was acquired by the Government for the benefit of the Notified Area of Mahoba, and compensation was awarded to the applicant, Kashi Prasad, by an order dated 11th October 1930. Kashi Prasad did not accept the award, and applied on 10th December 1930 that a reference should be made to the District Judge in the matter. The Collector made an order of reference to the District Judge en 23rd December 1930. Thereupon, the President of the Notified Area made an application to the Collector pointing out that the application of Kashi Prasad on which the Collector had acted was beyond time, and thereupon the Collector, professing to review his own judgment, by an order dated 23rd February 1931 cancelled his order of 23rd December 1930, and in effect refused to make a reference to the District Judge. Kashi Prasad appears...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal and anr. Vs. R.H. Skinner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All98
Pullan, J.1. These four appeals arise out of two suits for profits brought by R.H. Skinner and others for their share of the profits of the villages of Kavanpur Jatta and Dhaulana respectively under Section 165, Agra Tenancy Act (No. 2 of 1901). Both these villages are included in the Skinner estate of thirteen villages belonging to the late Stuart Skinner, and on the death of the said Stuart Skinner, the property devolved on his three sons and two daughters. Each son received a one-fourth share and the two daughters received a one-fourth share between them. The one fourth share of Robert Skinner, one of the sons of Stuart Skinner, was purchased at an auction sale by R.H. Skinner, the husband of Ada Skinner, one of the daughters of the late Stuart Skinner, and as the result of this purchase R.H. Skinner, his wife Ada Skinner and her sister Fanny Skinner, became the owners of one-half in both these villages. One of the two remaining shares, the share of George Skinner, another son of St...
Tag this Judgment!(Hafiz Sheikh) Fazlur Rahaman Vs. Haji Abdaullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All195
1. A difference of opinion has arisen between the members of this Bench : vide our separate judgments. It has been argued by the learned advocate for the appellant that this appeal is governed by Clause 27, Letters Patent, 1866 and not by Section 98, Civil P.C., Section 980(2) runs as follows:Where there is no such majority which concurs in a judgment varying or reversing a decree appealed from, such decree shall be confirmed:Provided that where the Bench hearing the appeal is composed of two Judges belonging to a Court consisting of more than two Judges, and the Judges composing the Bench differ in opinion on a point of law, they may state the point of law upon which they differ, and the appeal shall then be heard upon that point only by one or more of the other Judges and that such point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority (if any) of the Judges who have heard the appeal including those who first heard it.This rule is applicable not only to first appeals but als...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »