Allahabad Court May 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.
Lala Tribeni Ram, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1938
Reported in: [1938]6ITR510(All)
COLLISTER AND BAJPAI, JJ. - This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act from the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, central and United Provinces. The assessee in the present case is Lala Tribeni am of Bridgemanganj, and the assessment years are 1931-32 and 1932-33. The question of law that has been referred to us for our opinion is as follows :-'In the circumstances of this case was there no admissible evidence for the income-tax authorities to consider the deed of dissolution, dated the 26th of April 1933, as a fabrication for income-tax purpose?It is not denied that the assessee was at one time a partner in his business with Balram Das and Ramadas and the assessment for the two years in question has been made on the basis of this partnership. The assessees case, however, was that there had been a dissolution between the partners some time in October 1932 as evidenced by the document dated the 26th of April, 1933. This document was produced before the Income-...
Baij Nath Sahai Vs. Man Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All515
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for profits filed in the Revenue Court under Section 227, Agra Tenancy Act (Act 3 of 1926). The claim was with respect to 1337 Fasli and the total amount claimed by the plaintiff was a sum of Rs. 570. There were a number of defendants in the suit, but only two of the defendants, viz. Man Singh and Darya Singh minor, contested the plaintiff's claim. A joint written statement was filed by these defendants. They denied that they made collection of rent from the tenants in the year in question and asserted that the plaintiff himself realized his share of the rent from the tenants. These defendants therefore maintained that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for any amount. The only issue framed in the case by the trial Court was, what amount of profits, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to get and from whom? The trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for Rs. 310-13-9 only against Man Singh...
Mt. Kamni Begam and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All517
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the learned Additional District Magistrate of Naini Tal transferring two cases from the Court of a Subdivisions! Magistrate to his own Court. The applicants or one of them, I am told, made a complaint against one Sarwat Yar Khan and as the result of statements made by them in the course of that case the Court made a complaint under Section 193, I.P.C. that they had committed perjury. Sarwat Yar Khan also made a complaint that the applicants had been guilty of defamation. Both cases proceeded in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate and then Sarwat Yar Khan made an application to the Additional District Magistrate that they should both be transferred to his Court. Apparently the Additional District Magistrate asked for the explanation of the Sub-divisional Magistrate and after receiving it directed that the cases should be transferred to his Court. The main argument addressed to me is that the order of transfe...
Jugal Kishore Mukat Lal, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1938
Reported in: [1938]6ITR494(All)
CLLISTER and BAJPAI, JJ. - This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Central and United Provinces, by which our opinion is sought on one question of law. The statement is dated the 5th January 1936 and the question of law is :-'Whether, when at the time of assessment, a genuine firm had emerged from the disruption of a Hindu undivided family, the joint income of the account year - whether allocable to a part or the whole of that year - had to be assessed in the manner laid down in Section 25A(2); or whether, in view of the succession to the business of the assessee - an erstwhile Hindu undivided family - by a partnership firm consisting exclusively of the members of the family, the assessment had to be made in the manner laid down in Section 26(2)'.The facts may be briefly stated. The assessment year in question is 1933-34 and the accounting year is the Sambat year 1989 ending roughly with the financial year 1932-33....
Ganeshilal Bhattawala, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1938
Reported in: [1938]6ITR489(All)
COLLISTER AND BAJPAI, JJ. - This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central and United Provinces, under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax, Act. The assessee was Pandit Ganeshi Lal, now represented by his widow, and he owned and worked a brick-kiln. The accounting year is the year ending 30th September, 1932, and the Income-tax Officer assessed him to Income-tax at Rs. 5,206. The Income-tax Officer disallowed five items, for which the assessee claimed allowance.The assessee appealed from the assessment order to the assistant Commissioner. The latter allowed two of the items in respect to which allowance was sought. About another item there was no controversy. As regards the other two items, the Assistant Commissioner found against the assessee. One of these items is a sum of Rs. 414 and is described by the Income-tax Officer as 'loss in the dairy account, the assessee having discontinued the business in the year 1930 and the loss being merely the result of the sale of live ...
Lal Singh Nayal Vs. Jiwanand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All545
Collister, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal, the appellant being one Lal Singh Nayal. It appears that Jiwa Nand, plaintiff, had a decree against a man named Makoliya, who was admittedly the father of a joint Hindu family. After the death of Makoliya, Jiwa Nand took out execution, impleading the sons of Makoliya as legal representatives of the judgment-debtor. The family estate was put to sale, and Rs. 700 odd were realized. Before the receipts of the assets defendant-appellant Lai Singh Nayal and defendant-respondent Nitya Nand applied for rateable distribution under Section 73, Civil P.C., and their applications were allowed by the executing Court. It appears from the evidence of Eupua, one of the sons of Makoliya, that after their father's death the four sons accepted liability in respect of a debt due from Makoliya to Lai Singh Nayal and executed separate promissory notes in the sum of Rs. 200 each. This position is not contested by learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant. Afte...
Sheo Prasad Bansal Vs. Kulsharastra Sabha and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All527
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. These are two connected appeals arising out of a mortgage suit and can conveniently be disposed of together. The facts are as follows : There is a society styled Kulsharastra Sabha in the town of Aligarh. One Babu Kamta Prasad, a vakil, was the secretary of this Sabha. The plain, tiff alleged that the Sabha, through its secretary, had borrowed a sum of money from him and had executed a mortgage deed on behalf of the Sabha. The suit was instituted for enforcing the mortgage deed. The Sabha denied the mortgage set up and further pleaded that even if its execution was proved, it did not bind the Sabha as the secretary had no power to execute the same on its behalf. The secretary's defence was that the Sabha was bound as the loan had been taken under the orders of the Sabha and the money borrowed was spent on the property of the Sabha, The trial Court held that the mortgage was not binding on the Sabha. The suit was dismissed as against defendants 1 and 2. The plaintif...
Haji Sheikh Wahid-uddIn Vs. B. Makhan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All564
Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit brought by him under Section 33(2), U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, No. 27 of 1934, prayingthat the amount payable by the plaintiff to the defendants under the document dated 4th February 1982, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants for Rs. 1,00,000 may be declared after deducting the amount paid and fixing the rate of interest.2. The plaintiff, appellant alleged that he was an 'agriculturist' within the meaning of the Act; that he was an old resident of the United Provinces, and was entitled to the relief claimed; that he had executed a document for Rs. 1,00,000 in favour of the defendants on 4th February 1932; that the major portion of the property hypothecated under the said document lay in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, but at the instance of the defendants some property situate in the Province of Delhi was also mentioned in the document simply with the view that the document might be registered in Del...
Narhari Shastri and ors. Vs. Pt. Basudeo Namburi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All523
Verma, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against a judgment and decree of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge of Garhwal dismissing the suit on the preliminary ground that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The suit was a representative suit brought on behalf of all the members of the Deoprayagi Panda community of Badrinath and an application for permission to sue in a representative capacity was made to the Court below under Order 1. Rule 8, Civil P.C., and was granted. The reliefs as they ultimately stood after amendment are to be found at p. 6 of our paper book. The plaintiffs prayed for a declaration : (1) that they were the Pandas of Badrinath temple and had a right to go into the precincts of the temple at all times and on all occasions without obstruction, when the temple was open with the object of obtaining 'darahan' of the deity; (2) that they had a right freely to go into the precincts of the temple with their jajmans or clients, whenever it was open, for assist...
Kanhya Lal Vs. Maheshwar NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All479
Collister, J.1. We have before us a first appeal from order and also a revision against an order of the special Judge of Farrukhabad, dated 9th July 1936, staying proceedings in a suit for specific performance of contract. The suit was instituted on 1st October 1935 and the contract was alleged1 to have been entered into on 28th August 1935. The suit was filed by Kanhaiya Lal who is the appellant and applicant before us and the defendants to the suit were Maheshwar Narain and his two minor sons Surendra Narain and Narendra Narain. 6th July 1936 was fixed for hearing of that suit in the Court of the Civil Judge. Meanwhile proceedings had been taken by Maheshwar Narain under the Encumbered Estates Act (Local Act No. 25 of 1934). Cer. tain creditors, namley Mt. Gomti Bai, Gau Charan, Shib Charan and KunjBehari Lai, then applied to the special Judge for stay of the suit for specific performance of contract. We are informed that Maheshwar Narain had also attempted on several occasions befor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›