Allahabad Court September 1940 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.
Ganga Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1940
Reported in: [1941]9ITR373(All)
The applicant before us was assessed to tax by the Income-tax Officer of Mirzapur on a total income of Rs. 32,856. This included a sum of Rs. 17,051. He appealed and his appeal was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner. He then applied for relief under Section 33 of the Act to the Commissioner, and he also prayed that the Commissioner should state a case and refer the same to us, formulating certain questions of law. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces, refused both the requests of the assessee.We have thus before us an application under Section 66(3) of the Act, and the question which we have got to decide is whether the Commissioners decision that no question of law arose in the case was correct or not. After having gone through the various orders of the Income-tax authorities and after having heard Mr. Malik, we have come to the conclusion that the question involved in this case is a pure question of fact and the Commissioners decision is correct.T...
B P Halder and Sons in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1940
Reported in: [1942]10ITR79(All)
.In view of the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal v. Mahaliram Ramjidas, VIII Income-tax Reports, p. 442, it is conceded by learned counsel for the applicant that the question of law involved in this reference must be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Department, and we so answer them. Let a copy of our judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar be sent to the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference. Counsel for the Department is entitled to a fee of Rs. 100....
Rai Saheb Ram Dayal Agarwala in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1940
Reported in: [1942]10ITR93(All)
This is an application under Section 66 (3) of the Income-tax in which the applicant requests this Court to direct the Commissioner of Income-tax to state a case.There is no copy before us of the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer or of the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner. When we drew the attention of the applicants counsel to this omission he asked for time in which to make it good. The learned Advocate-General there upon pointed out another defect in this proceeding and that is that the sum of Rs. 100 which the applicant had to deposit under Section 66 (2) has already been withdrawn by the applicant. Section 66 (20 requires that the assessee who makes an application under that sub-section to the Commissioner of Income-tax must deposit a fee of Rs. 100, and the second proviso to that sub-section directs that '...... if...... the commissioner refuses to state the case, the assessee may within thirty days from the date on which he receives notice of the order pass...
Baijnath Prasad Vs. Tejpal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All55
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a report by the taxing officer and arises under the following circumstances. Baijnath Prasad plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for partition in the Court of the civil Judge of Azamgarh. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondents and one of the points raised in defence was that the plaint was insufficiently stamped. In consequence of this plea raised, by the defendants one of the issues raised in the case was whether the court-fee paid was sufficient.' In view of the provisions of Section 6(4), Court-fees Act, it was the duty of the civil Judge to have decided the question of sufficiency or otherwise of the court-fee paid on the plaint before proceeding to decide the other issues in the case. It however appears that an assurance was held out by the plaintiff's counsel that if, while deciding the suit, the civil Judge found the court-fee to be insufficient, the insufficiency in the court-fee will be made good by the plaintiff forthwith. In view of this a...
Chhakauri Singh Vs. Sri Krishna Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All134
Allsop, J.1. The question which is to be decided is what amount of court-fee should be charged on a memorandum of appeal against a decree passed in a suit to obtain an injunction. The law in force when the suit was instituted was that the court-fee charged on the plaint should be ad valorem according to the amount at which the relief sought was valued in the plaint, it being left to the plaintiff's discretion to place whatever valuation he wished upon his relief. The plaintiff valued his relief at Rs. 5 and paid the proper court-fee on that amount. At the time when the second appeal was filed in this Court, the law had been amended by a local Act, Act 19 of 1938. After the substitution of the words 'second appeals from decrees in suits' for the word 'suits' in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(iv) and the omission of the portions which are irrelevant, Section 7 is now as follows:The amount of lee payable under this Act in the second appeals from decrees in suits next hereinaf...
Harendra Shankar and anr. Vs. Khiali Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All504
Iqbal Ahmad J. 1. The questions that arise for decision in the present case are as to what is the amount of court-fee payable on: (a) a plaint in a suit under Section 33, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act (27 of 1934), and (b) a memorandum of appeal against a decree passed in such a suit. There is conflict of judicial opinion in this Court on both the points and it is with a view to set at rest that conflict that the present reference to a Full Bench has been made. The answer to the first question depends upon the determination of the question as to whether a suit under Section 33 is a suit for accounts or is a suit to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed. In the Act as originally passed there was no provision as to the amount of court-fee chargeable on a plaint in a suit under Section 33, nor was there any provision as to the amount at which such a suit is to be valued, and the Section ran as follows:(1) An agriculturist debtor may sue for an account of mo...
Bahadur Khan Vs. Bari Tala and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All525
Braund, J.1. This is an execution second appeal which raises an interesting little point. A suit was brought in the year 1934 by one Zahir-uddin Khan, purporting to sue on behalf of Bari Tala, against Bahadur Khan for possession of certain premises and for rent. On 25th March 1935 the plaintiff in that suit obtained a decree for possession and Zahir-uddin in fact obtained possession under that decree. He did not, however, manage to retain the fruits of his victory because on 28th September 1936 the decree was set aside on appeal and the suit was dismissed. In the result, therefore, the suit failed. This gave rise to the position which is intended to be covered by Section 144, Civil P.C., and on 16th March 1937 the successful appellant, Bahdur Khan, applied under that section for restitution to him of the possession of which he had been deprived under the decree that had been set aside. It was held that he was entitled to get the property back and an order was made accordingly. This ord...
Thakurani Jamuna Kunwar Vs. Thakur Arjun Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All43
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff Thakurani Jamna Kurrwar. She brought a suit in the Court below against Thakur Arjun Singh for the recovery of 'a sum of Rs. 29,000 with costs and pendente lite and future interest to be declared a charge on the property detailed at the foot of the plaint.' The allegations in the plaint were that the plaintiff's husband, Thakur Laiq Singh was a very big zamindar and taluqa, dar and the income from his zamindari property alone was Rs. 41,000 per annum. Apart from this zamindari property he was alleged to have an orchard yielding an income of Rs. 2000 per annum and money lending business on an extensive scale together with deposits in the bank of about Rs. 50,000 and ornaments of gold and silver. Thakur Laiq Singh died in November 1931 and it was said that the defendant entered into possession of the entire estate of Thakur Laiq Singh and the plaintiff, as the widow of the said Thakur, was entitled to maintenance and the Court could declare ...
Mt. Muniran Vs. Mt. Mukhtar Begam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All521
Braund, J.1. This is a second appeal in which a short point is involved. The suit is a partition suit. The plaintiff, Mt. Mukhtar Begam, is the daughter of Shamsher Khan and his wife, the defendant-appellant, Mt. Muniran. A court-fee of Rs. 15 has been paid in respect of the appeal under Article 17(vi), Court-fees Act, 1870. The short point I have to determine is whether that is the correct court-fee. The defence to the suit by the defendant-appellant Mt. Muniran, is that her husband, Shamsher, long since died and she, as his widow, has since his death been, and still is, in possession of the property in question in lieu of dower. She says that her dower amounted to Rs. 5000-which is not disputed-and she pleads her present possession as 'possession in lieu of dower,' setting it up in priority to the plaintiff's right of partition.2. There is no question but that, if the widow lawfully and without force or fraud obtained possession of the premises in lieu of dower, her possession will b...
Rama Charan Vs. Raghubir Saran and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All540
Braund, J.1. This is a second appeal which raises a question which when properly understood, is not, to my mind, one of great difficulty. The suit is a suit by a mortgagee to enforce his mortgage by sale Defendant 1, Govind Prasad, is the mortgagor. Defendants 2 and 3, Bankey Lal and Mt. Ram Mukho, are mortgagees under the mortgage dated 18th August 1923 and are joined as defendants to the suit upon the footing of this mortgage being a puisne mortgage to that of the plaintiff. Defendant 4, Ram Charan, is also joined as a defendant to the suit upon the footing of his being also a puisne mortgagee under a mortgage dated 20th April 1923. It is with the priority of this mortgage dated 20th April 1923 that this appeal is concerned. The whole contest in the Courts below and in this appeal has been whether Ram Charan in respect of this mortgage is entitled to priority over the plaintiff's mortgage or not. Finally, the original mortgagee, Ratan Lal, who has transferred his mortgage to the plai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›