Allahabad Court March 1939 Judgments
Chandrika Prasad Ram Swarup Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All341
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(3), Income-tax Act (Act 11 of 1922), by the Commissioner of Income-tax in accordance with the order of this Court passed on an application filed by firm Chandrika Prasad Ram Swarup hereinafter referred to as the assessee firm and the questions of law that fall to be decided are as follows:(1) Whether the partnership between Chandrika Prasad Ram Swarup and Bulaqidas Bamgopal was a valid partnership in law in view of the provisions of the Partnership Act of 1932.(2) Whether the assessee firm in its corporate capacity being in point of fact a partner in another firm and having as such invested its funds in such partnership and having sustained losses by reason of such partnership, such losses cannot in law be treated as the losses suffered in the course of business by the assessee-firm, and whether such losses cannot be allowed in the course of assessment.(2) Whether the sum of Rs. 51,000 interest paid to Bihari Lal Ram Charan in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Koer Durag Pal Singh Vs. Th. Pancham Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All403
Thom, C.J.1. The question referred for decision may be stated thus : 'Is Section 48, Civil P.C., uncontrolled by the provisions of Section 15, Limitation Act?' The question has arisen in the following circumstances : A final decree was passed on 19th May 1922 against one Raghubir Pal Singh and his son Dirag Pal Singh. The decree-holders presented an application for execution of that decree on 8th May 1925. During the pendency of this application, the validity of the decree was challenged by the judgment-debtors in Suit No. 171 of 1926. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 23rd May 1927. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court and during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court the execution proceedings initiated on 8th May 1925 were stayed by order dated 26th November 1927. On 12th April 1932, the judgment-debtors appeal in Suit No. 171 of 1926 was dismissed and the stay order was discharged. The execution application had remained pending throughout. It was however dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrika Prasad Ram Swarup Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. and C ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1939
Reported in: [1939]7ITR269(All)
IQBAL AHMAD, J. - This is a reference under Section 66(3) of the Income-tax Act (Act No. XI of 1922) by the Commissioner of Income-tax in accordance with the order of this Court passed on an application filed by firm Chandrika Prasad Ram Swarup hereinafter referred to as the assessee firm and the questions of law that fall to be decided are as follows :-(1) Whether the partnership between Chandrika Prasad Ram Swarup and Bulaqi Das Ramgopal was a valid partnership in law in view of the provisions of the Partnership Act of 1932.(2) Whether the assessee firm in its corporate capacity being in point of fact a partner in another firm and having as such invested its funds in such partnership and having sustained losses by reason of such partnership, such losses cannot in law be treated as the losses suffered in the course of business by the assessee-firm, and whether such losses cannot be allowed in the course of assessment.(3) Whether the sum of Rs. 51,000 interest paid to Bihari Lal Ram Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Kamta Prasad Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All609
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. 16 arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 39 from the defendant, the Secretary of State for India, on the ground that the said amount which he had sent to the defendant had been illegally appropriated by the latter towards an alleged liability of the plaintiff for tax though under the law the plaintiff was not really liable. The plaintiff owned a motor lorry which plied for hire between Ballia and Sikandarpur. It was duly licensed and registered in June 1935. The license expired on 30th June 1936. In the meantime for some reason with which we are not particularly concerned, the plaintiff's lorry was suspended by the police. Daring the months of July, August and September, the road between Ballia and Sikandarpur was, according to the plaintiff, in such a state of disrepair and damage on account of floods that no motor lorries could ply. The plain, tiff alleged that...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Moti Lal Raghubar Dayal Vs. Bombay Port Trust Railway and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All649
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application, in revision under Section 25, Small Cause Court Act. It; arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against two Railway Companies having their headquarters at Bombay - the Bombay Port Trust Railway and the Great Indian Peninsular Railway - to recover a sum of Rs. 260 which is made up of the following items : (1) A sum of Rs. 186-5-0 realized from the plaintiff in respect of three consignments on the ground the booking clerk at the station of despatch had made an undercharge. (2) A sum of Rs. 24 for reweighing the three consignments at the station of destination at the rate of Rs. 8 per consignment. (3) A sum of Rs. 5 realized, from the plaintiff for demurrage in respect of one consignment. (4) A sum of Rs. 4 spent by the plaintiff in giving notice to the defendants. (5) A sum of Rs. 40-11-0 for interest by way of damages. The facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows:Three consignments of iron rails were despatched by an a...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur DIn and anr. Vs. Sita Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All399
Thom, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal-arising out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought an injunction restraining the defendants Sita Ram and Ram Chait from interfering with their possession of a certain house. The house had been sold by Sita Ram in execution of a decree for money which he had obtained against Paltu, the father of the appellants. Sita Ram having obtained this decree sought in execution thereof to sell the house, which has been held by the learned Civil Judge in the lower Appellate Court to be ancestral property. Paltu preferred an objection to the sale of the house under Section 60(1)(c), Civil P.C. He alleged that he was an agriculturist and that therefore the ancestral house was not liable to sale in execution of the decree against him. This objection was ultimately dismissed for default and the, house was sold by the decree-holder. In these circumstances the appellants, the sons of Paltu, have brought the suit out of which this appeal arises to restrain the d...
Tag this Judgment!Ladli Prasad Zutshi Vs. U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All498
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff, Pandit Ladli Prasad Zutshi, claimed to recover a sum of Rs. 5, plus Re. 1, as interest by way of damages from the opposite party, the U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Allahabad, on the ground that the said amount had been illegally exacted from him by the said Company. The relevant facts of the case may briefly be stated:The plaintiff has entered into an agreement with the company for the supply of: electrical energy to his premises No. 22, George Town, Allahabad. The terms of the agreement are embodied in a formal document which is Ex. P on the record. It is not contested that under the terms of this agreement the plaintiff is bound by the company's conditions of supply and also by the company's official scale of charges for the time being in force in respect of his liability to pay to the company for the electrical energy supplied to him or for other services performe...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Asharfi Kuer Vs. Smt. Ram Pearey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All442
Thom, C.J.1. These are two connected appeals by the defendant in a suit for accounts and may appropriately be disposed of in one judgment. The relief claimed by the plaintiff is in the following terms:The defendant may be ordered to render to the plaintiff a detailed account of the entire income which may have accrued from the field and residential property, money-lending business and other sources, since the death of Chaudhari Ram Prasad, within a time to be fixed by the Court and of the amount which has been realized, as well as that which is in arrears in respect of the money-lending business under the documents which existed at the time of the death of Chaudhri Ram Prasad or the documents which were obtained after his death in lieu of previous documents or with the income of the property. If she fails to do so, proper proceedings may be taken and Rs. 4200 or such amount as may be found due to the plaintiff by the defendant, under the account, together with interest for past years a...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jharihag
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All541
ORDER1. These are four references from the learned District Magistrate, Mirzapur, under Section 561-A, Criminal P.C., relating to orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mirzapur. The opposite parties were prosecuted for a breach of certain rules made with respect to the Mirzapur Stone Mahals under Section 11 of the Act. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the cases for default of the prosecution. This Court can revise orders of the Criminal Courts only under Section 561-A, Criminal P.C. The orders under reference were passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as Assistant Collector and not as a Magistrate. The cases were started under the Mirzapur Stone Mahal Act (Act 5 of 1886). The Act provides for the whole procedure for the trial of the cases under it. It appears from Sections 15 and 18 that the offences are to be tried by the Assistant Collector and not by a Magistrate. Under Section 15 the Collector with the previous sanction of the Commissioner may empower any offic...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Bahadur Vs. Sohan Pal Munna Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All517
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. This is a first appeal arising out of execution proceedings. The respondents Messrs. Sohan Pal Munna Lal obtained a decree for Rs. 2,11,000 odd against Sant Lal on 16th March 1932 in Suit No. 19 of 1931. In execution of decree certain properties were attached. An objection was made under Order 21, Rule 58 by the appellant Raj Bahadur. The objection was dismissed. Thereupon, Raj Bahadur instituted a regular suit, No. 69 of 1932, against the decree-holder praying for a declaration that he wa3 the real owner of the property that was nought to be sold in execution of decree in Suit No. 19 of 1931. Ultimately this suit was compromised and the decree-holder agreed to reduce the decretal amount to Rs. 8000. On behalf of Raj Bahadur an undertaking was given that the decretal amount will be paid by him within a certain period failing which the decree-holder will be entitled to realize the money by sale of the property under attachment in decree No. 19 of 1931. It was furth...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »