Allahabad Court February 1938 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.
Tilak Ram and ors. Vs. Surat Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All297
Bennet, Ag. C.J.1. This is a reference to a Full Bench of the following issue of law : 'Is the plaintiffs' suit barred by limitation under the circumstances of the present case? '2. The facts of the case are as follows : These four second appeals arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover Rs. 5000 as damages from the defendants on account of a breach of contract. The plaintiffs were owners of property mentioned in Schedule A which was subject to the following three mortgages : (1) of 13th February 1902; (2) of 7th May 1919, and (3) of 28th September 1920. The first mortgage was a usufructuary mortgage and was for Rs. 3200. The second mortgage was a simple one and was for Rs. 1000 and the third mortgage was also a simple one and was for Rs. 5000. Out of the property mentioned in Schedule A, a part which is given in Schedule B was sold on 18tb September 1922 by three sale deeds to the defendants. By one sale deed plaintiffs, Sarupi and Mughla, sold property mentioned in the...
Thakur Kishun Chand Singh Vs. Munshi Makund Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All308
ORDERMohammad Ismail, J.1. This is an application under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C., for a review of a judgment in Civil Revn. No. 25 of 1937, Mukand Sarup v. Krishna Chandra, reported in : AIR1938All86 delivered by a Bench of this Court, consisting of Niamatullah J. and myself. In consequence of the retirement of Niamatullah J. on 7th December 1937, I alone heard the application as provided by Order 47, Rule 5, Civil P.C.2. In order to appreciate the argument addressed to me in support of the application it is necessary to state a few facts that led to the revision. Syed Haidar Shah and two others executed a usufructuary mortgage deed in favour of M. Makund Sarup and Maulvi Ghafur Bakhsh on 17th December 1904 in respect of four villages. The share of Makund Sarup was three-fifth and of Ghafur Bakhsh two-fifth in the mortgage security. Subsequently Ghafur Bakhsh transferred his share to different persons and now one half of Ghafur Bakhsh's share is owned by Kishun Chand Singh and the ...
In Re: Ganeshi Lal and Sons, Jewellers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All367
Collister, J.1. These are two applications under Section 66(3), Income-tax Act requesting this Court to direct the Commissioner of Income-tax to state a case for the decision of this Court. The assessees are a firm at Agra known as Ganeshi Lal and Sons. They are dealers in jewellery, embroidery, curios and objets d'art of various kinds. One of these applications relates to the year 1933-1934 and the other relates to the year 1934-1935. They can be disposed of together, as was done by the Assistant Commissioner and by the Commissioner. The questions upon which we are asked to direct the Commissioner to state a case are as follows:(a) Whether in view of the facts of the case the stock valuations should not have been accepted and whether the books could be legally rejected and an estimated profit could be rightly made on percentage basis under Section 13 of the Act?(b) Whether that flat rate of 30 per cent, was rightly taken by the learned Income-tax Officer for estimating net profit (les...
Gobind Behari and ors. Vs. Shujaat-mand Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All364
Collister, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Civil Judge of Farrukhabad allowing an application for restitution under Section 144, Civil P.C. On 16th December 1897, the predecessor of the respondents mortgaged 8 zamindari properties with one Lachmi Narain for Rs. 500. On 31st August 1905, 8 zamindari properties and also a house were mortgaged with Raj Kunwar and others for Rs. 10,000, the mortgage of 1897 being satisfied out of the consideration. On 6th August 1914, 8 zamindari properties and the same house and also a grove were mortgaged with Kunwar Bahadur and others, the predecessors of the present appellants. This was a mortgage by conditional sale and the earlier mortgage of 1905 was paid up. It appears that in 1901 there was a settlement and in 1907 there was a partition and there was a change in the mahals and in the description of shares belonging to the zamindars. The mortgagees under the mortgage deed of 6th August 1914, who are the appellants before us, sued for fo...
Ganeshi Lal and Sons, Jewellers, Agra Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1938
Reported in: [1938]6ITR390(All)
COLLISTER, J. - These are two applications under Sec. 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act requesting this court to direct the Commissioner of Income-tax to state a case for the decision of this court.The assessee are a firm at Agra known as Ganeshi Lal and Sons. They are dealers in jewellery, embroidery, curios and objects dart of various kinds. On the these applications relates to the year 1933-34 and the other relates to the year 1934-35. They can be disposed of together, as was done by the Assistant Commissioner and by the Commissioner.The questions upon which we are asked to direct the Commissioner to state a case are as follows :(a) Whether in view of the facts of the case the stock valuations should not haves been accepted and whether the books could be legally rejected and an estimated profit could be eighty made on percentage basis under Section 13 of the Act(b) Whether the flat rate 30 per cent. was rightly taken by the learned Income-tax Officer for estimating net profit (less...
Pt. Shyama Charan Vs. Mt. Anguri Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All253
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Agra recommending that an order passed by a Bench of Magistrates on 18th August 1937 be set aside. The Magistrates passed an order against Shyama Charan under the provisions of Section 488(3), Criminal P.C., that he should be sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months or until payment was sooner made of a maintenance allowance due for six months. The learned Sessions Judge has referred the case to this Court because it appears to him that Shyama Charan is protected from arrest or detention under the provisions of Section 31, Provincial Insolvency Act, he having been adjudged insolvent and having obtained a protection order from the Insolvency Court. The learned Judge has based his conclusion upon the fact that a maintenance allowance is a debt provable under the Act. It seems to me that that is not the real question which has to be decided. The question is whether the protection order applies t...
Auraiya Pay Office of Imperial Bank of India Vs. Notified Area Committ ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All302
Bajpai, J.1. This is a reference under Section 162, U.P. Municipalities Act, Local Act 2 of 1916. It appears that during the hearing of an appeal under Section 160, the District Magistrate of Etawah entertained a reasonable doubt as to the principle of assessment of a tax imposed by the Notified Area of Auraiya on the Auraiya Pay Office of the Imperial Bank of India, and he has therefore drawn up a statement of the facts of the case and has referred the same to us with his own opinion for decision.2. The tax in question is a tax under Section 128(1)(ix), that is, a tax on inhabitants assessed according to their circumstances and property. Under Section 337 the Local Government may declare a local area as a notified area after issuing a notification to that effect under Sub-section 1 and under Section 338 the Local Government may by notification, impose in the whole or a part of such area, any tax which might be imposed therein under the provisions of the Municipalities Act or any other...
Emperor Vs. Bansi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All227
Collister, J.1. This is reference under Section 307, Criminal P.C. Six persona, Bansi, Jagan, Sajwa, Harwa, Saikwa and Sheoraj, all Pasis by caste, were tried before the Assistant Sessions Judge of Allahabad on a charge under Section 457, Penal Code. It was a jury trial and the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty. The Judge disagrees with that verdict and has referred the matter to this Court. The case for the prosecution was as follows : At about 11 p.M. on 16tb May 1937 Munshi Kabir Ahmad, the station officer of the Nawabganj police station, received information that a bur. glary was to be committed that night at the house of a gadaria named Bhagwandin, a resident of Bhagwanpur. The station officer thereupon collected practically his whole staff, comprising two second officers, the head moharrir, the constable moharrir and nine constables, 14 persons in all, and proceeded towards Bhagwanpur, which is at a distance of about four miles from Nawabganj. He left the police station...
Mahant Mangal Puri Vs. Mahant Baldeo Puri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All304
Collister, J.1. This is a reference by the District Judge of Jhansi, under Section 60(1), Stamp Act. A document was filed in Suit No. 26 of 1934 under which two houses were leased to certain persons and it was stipulated in the lease that if the owner wished to have the houses vacated, he was to give one month's notice. The Inspector of Stamps is of opinion that the document falls under Article 35(a)(iv) of Schedule (1), Stamp Act, while the Civil Judge in whose Court the document was presented, is apparently of opinion that it falls under Article 35(a)(i). Article 35(a)(i) provides that where the lease purports to be for a term of less than one year, duty should be charged at a certain rate, and Article 35(a)(iv) provides that where the lease does not purport to be for any definite term, duty should be charged at a certain other rate. The view taken by the Civil Judge finds support from a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Amolia v. Ibrahim Ishak (1919) 6 A.I.R. Cal. 200. In that ...
Court of Wards Vs. L. Ajodhia Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All305
Collister, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The defendant-appellant is the Court of Wards at Muzaffarnagar, represented by the Collector, and the action out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26-2-0. It appears that the estate of Khan Bahadur Muzaffar Ali Khan had been taken over by the Court of Wards. Muzaffar Ali Khan was an Honorary Assistant Collector and it is alleged that in that capacity he decreed a suit for arrears of rent in favour of the plaintiff against one Bakhshi, the deceased father of respondent 2, Pitam. Thereafter execution was taken out and it is alleged that on 10th February 1931, the decretal money was paid by the judgment-debtor to Khan Bahadur Muzaffar Ali Khan, who thereupon struck off the execution case, recording full satisfaction of the claim. The money was, however, never paid to the plaintiff, but was converted by Khan Bahadur Muzaffar Ali Khan to his own use. Hence this suit for recovery of Rs. 2612-0 p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »