Allahabad Court October 1933 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All189
ORDERYoung, J.1. This is a report by the Official Liquidators of the Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co., Ltd. (in liquidation) with regard to the disposal of a surplus in their hands after paying the creditors. The creditors themselves claim that they should be allowed interest from the date of the winding up, up to the date of payment. The preferential share-holders, on the other hand, oppo3e this application. Mr. Section K. Dar on bahalf of one of the large creditors Messrs Dun Hardware Stores presses that the claims of the creditors should be preferred to those of the preferential share-holders. It appears to me that it cannot really be said that the creditors have been paid in full until their claims for interest on the amounts outstanding have been satisfied. It appears to me only to be fair that they should get some sum by way of interest. This principle, of course, is stronger hi the cases of those creditors who have had contracts with the company for the payment of intere...
Atma Ram Vs. Beni Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All198; 147Ind.Cas.1067
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty In Council from an order passed by a Bench of this Court in revision on the civil side. The facts are very peculiar. On 20th January 1920, a Hindu widow Mt. Danni Kuar died and it is alleged that the estate devolved on two collaterals who were brothers, namely, Janeshwar Das and Badri Das. Badri Das predeceased Janeshwar Das. The latter left three widows, Mt. Jaimala Kuer, Mt. Chando Kuer and Me. Bhagwati Kuer. It appears that the Court of Wards took over the estate of these widows which bad been in the possession of Janeshwar Das. After the estate was so taken over, the only person who could bring the suit in respect of any part of the estate of Janeshwar Das was the Court of Wards through the Collector. As the property which had been in the possession of Mt. Danni Kuer never came into tha posses, sion of Janeshwar Das or Badri Das and remained in the possession of the principal defendant Atma Bam, who olafmed ...
In Re: Behari Lal Chatterji Dasaswamedh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All930
Bennet, J.1. This is an Income-tax reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax to this Court. The following three questions have been referred to this Court:(1) Whether the assessment made without issuing a notice under Section 22(4) is not an assessment to the best of judgment as contemplated by Section 23(4) and is illegal. (2) Whether the issue of a notice of demand under Section 29 with respect to an assessment made under Sub-section (4), Section 23, wherein no power to determine the sum payable by the assessee on the basis of such assessment has been conferred on an Income-tax Officer, is illegal: and (3) whether a return made under Section 22(2) on the form supplied to the assessee by the Income-tax Officer, with the omission of signatures, is an incomplete return contemplated by Section 23(2) and the assessment in such case could not be made without issue of a notice under this section, viz. 23(2)?2. The facts of the case, as stated, are that a notice under Section 22(2), Income...
Behari Lal Chatterji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1933
Reported in: [1934]2ITR377(All)
This is an Income Tax reference by the Commissioner of Income Tax to this Court. The following three questions have been referred to this Court :'(1) Whether the assessment made without issuing a notice under Section 22(4) is not an assessment to the best of judgment as contemplated by Section 23(4) and is illegal.(2) Whether the issue of a notice of Demand under Section 29, with respect to an assessment made under sub-Section (4) of Section 23, wherein no power to determine the sum payable by the assessee on the basis of such assessment has been conferred on an Income Tax Officer, is illegal; and(3) Whether a return made under Section 22(2) on the form supplied to the assessee by the Income Tax officer with the omission of signatures is an incomplete return contemplated by Section 23(2) and the assessment in such case could not be made without issue of a notice under this section viz., 23(2).'The facts of the case, as stated are that a notice under Section 22(2) of the Income Tax Act ...
The Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. in Liquidation Vs. D ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.682
Young, J.1. This is a report by the Official Liquidators of the Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Company Limited (in liquidation) with regard to the disposal of a surplus in their hands after paying the creditors. The creditors themselves claim that they should be allowed interest from the date of the winding-up up to the date of payment. The preferential share-holders, on the other hand, oppose this application. Mr. S.K. Dar on behalf of one of the large creditors Messrs. Dun Hardware Stores presses that the claims of the creditors should be preferred to those of the preferential share-holders. It appears to me that it cannot really be said that the creditors have been paid in full until their claims for interest on the amounts outstanding have been satisfied. It appears to me only to be fair that they should get some sum by way of interest. This principle, of course, is stronger in the cases of those creditors (who have had contracts with the company for the payment of interest o...
Ram Das and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All61
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. Aminuddin, Ram Das, Thakur Prasad, Ram Narain, Vishnath, Sham Das, and Amuliya Charan Das, 7 appellants, were tried in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge along with three other persons under Section 120-B, read with Sections 489-A, and 489-B, Penal Code. The charge against them was that they had agreed, and conspired with one another and some other persons between 6th July 1924, and 5th October 1930 at Benares, Dundun, Calcutta and other places in British India for making and uttering forged currency notes of various series and denominations with a common object to make money by illegal means, and that in pursuance of the said conspiracy notes of ED/23, RE/55 and PE/40 series, of the denomination of Rupees 100 each, and CD/91, and OD/94 series of the de. nomination of Rs. 5 each were forged : and further negatives and blocks of Rs. 10 notes of the old pattern were prepared with a view to forge notes of that denomination. Some of the accused were further charge...
Sandal Singh Vs. Dist. Magistrate and Superintendent
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All148
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application from an order of the District Magistrate, Dehradun, directing the arrest of the applicant by the Superintendent of Police and an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate requiring securities from him and ultimately releasing him on bail. The proceeding arose out of the is sue of a warrant by the Political Agent of the Punjab States under the Extradition Act (Act 15 of 1903). The warrant was issued on 8th May 1933 and it stated that an offence under Section 409/477-A, Penal Code, was committed or was supposed to have been committed within the limits of the Sirmoor State by the applicant, Sandal Singh. It was addressed to the District Magistrate of Dehradun, who was directed to arrest him and deliver him to the Sirmoor State authorities. On receipt of this warrant the District Magistrate forwarded it to the Superintendent of Police, presumably for taking necessary action. But the applicant was not arrested till 27th June 1933 when, on furnishing secu...
Emperor Vs. Chaiyan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All216
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge at Banda at lamirpur recommending that a commitnent made by a Magistrate to his Court should be quashed. The ground alleged is that no proper complaint was made under Section 476, Criminal P.C. The facts are that there was a suit for recovery of Rs. 13 before a panchayat consituted under the U.P. Village Panohayats Act, Act 6 of 1920. The panohayat were of opinion that tbe date in the promissory note on which the plaintiff relied had been altered in order to bring the suit within limitation and they made a report to the Collector. It is claimed by the learned Assistant Government Advocate that this report would constitute the complaint required by Section 476, Criminal P.C. Under that section the Court making a complaint 'shall forward the same to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction.' Now the report of the panohayat was not addressed to a Magistrate but to the Collector. It is true that the Collector...
Aziz Ahmad and ors. Vs. Riaz-ul Hasan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All89
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of an application for the preparation of a final decree on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 8th October 1912 which was for a period of eight, years. A suit was filed in 1920 for sale against four defendants mortgagors. A preliminary decree was passed against all the four by the trial Court on 21st March 1922. Only two out of the four defendants mortgagors, namely, Rashid Ahmad and Majid Ahmad appealed to the High Court the other two defendants, Aziz Ahmed and Mt. Jafri Begam did not join in the appeal, but they were, however, made pro forma respondents in the appeal. The appeal was preferred against, the whole decree. Grounds were taken that the suit of the plaintiffs was not maintainable and the relief sought by the appeal wasthat, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased to set aside the decree of the Court below and dismiss the plaintiffs' suit or grant, such other or further relief as it, may deem fit.2. While the appeal was...
Sajjad HusaIn Vs. Muhammad Sayid Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All71
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit to recover a sum of money. Mohammad Saiyad Husain, the plaintiff-respondent, who is the father-in law of Sajjad Husain alias Ata Husain, defendant-appellant, instituted a suit against defendant to recover a sum of Rs. 6,000. Mt. Saira Khatoon, the daughter of the plaintiff, who was married to the defendant on 3rd November 1923, died after a prolonged illness on 5th August 1925. The plaintiff's case was that on the occasion of the marriage of his daughter with the defendant he had given her jewellery, clothes and untensils of the value of Rs. 1,000 as dowry, and that on her death ha was entitled to recover the same; but as the defendant declined to return these articles he sued for their value. Admittedly the dower of the deceased lady was Rs. 5,000. The plaintiff claimed to recover this amount also from the defendant. The claim was resisted by the defendant who pleaded that his wife had relinquished the whole of he...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »