Allahabad Court December 1943 Judgments
Govind Ram Tansukh Rai, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1943
Reported in: [1944]12ITR450(All)
This is a reference under Section 66(3) of the Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), by the Commissioner of Income-tax stating a case and the following questions of law for determination of this Court.The assessee Govind ram Tansukh Rai carries on business at Ujhanj in Budaun District in British India and at Sambhar in the Jodhpur State. This business is carried on under different names and at Sambhar it is carried on under two names, viz., Sri Narain Har Bilas and Govind Ram Tansukh Rai. For the assessment year 1934-35 and for the accounting period Sambat 1989-90 corresponding to November, 1932, to October, 1933, the assessee originally was taxed on a total income of Rs. 16,272; subsequently supplementary assessment proceedings were started by the Income-tax Officer of Budaun under Section 34 of the Act with a view to assess certain income which had escaped assessment and a fresh assessment was made by him on a total income Rs. 29,906. This figure included a sum of Rs. 12,405 found to be the p...
Tag this Judgment!Chanda Devi Vs. Natthu Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All88
Mulla, J.1. The two connected appeals arise out of two suits Nos. 542 of 1930 and 544 of 1930. Both the suits were filed on the basis of two mortgage deeds. Mt. Chanda Devi was the plaintiff in the former suit and Mt. Sona Devi in the latter. The defendants in both the suits were common. The suits were decreed on 8th December 1930. The decree in suit No. 542 was made final on 13th September 1931 and in suit No. 544 on 24th October 1931. In the latter suit an application for execution was made on 3lst March 1932. On 19th April 1932, the Court ordered that a copy of the final decree may be produced. For reasons which will be noticed later, no further steps were taken by the decree-holder and the application for execution was accordingly dismissed. In the other suit no application for execution of the decree was made.2. Two of the defendants instituted suit No. 90 of 1931 on 15th September 1931, praying that both the decrees may be declared null and void on the allegation that they were i...
Tag this Judgment!Parmeshwari Das and ors. Vs. Angan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All81
Dar, J.1. This is a reference, dated 26th September 1941, by the Munsif of Pilibhit under Section 289, U.P. Tenancy Act (17 of 1939), by which he has referred the following issue for the determination of this Court:Whether in view of the change introduced by the Legislature in Sections 44, 271, 273 and 230 of Local Act 3 of 1926 which find place as Sections 180, 286, 288 and 242, respectively in Act 17 of 1939, the law laid down in the Full Bench ruling in Mohammad Muslim v. Maharania : AIR1927All369 is still the law of the land?2. This reference is made by the Munsif in relation to a suit which is pending in his Court for recovery of possession of four plots of land situated in mohal Lakhan of village Beharipur Bhaira in Pilibhit district. The plaintiffs, Parmeshwari Das and others, and the defendant, Angan Lal, at one time were the joint proprietors of the aforesaid mohal. At the instance of the defendant, an imperfect partition of the mohal was made by the revenue Court and two patt...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Vidyavati Alias Munni Vs. L. Radhey Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All83
Mathur, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned District Judge of Shahjahanpur by which he accepted the report of the Inspector of Stamps and ordered the appellant to pay the court-fee as suggested by the Inspector of Stamps. It appears that the appellant brought a suit for pre-emption to pre-empt a house which was ostensibly sold for Rs. 1200 and offered Rs. 700 as the actual price. When the suit was still before the learned Munsif a report was made by the Inspector of Stamps that the market value of the house in dispute should be as given in the sale deed and a court-fee must be required on Rs. 1200. The learned Munsif accordingly deputed the Court amin to find out the market value and to make a report. The amin reported that the market value of the house, according to his assessment, was Rs. 750. On 14th September 1940, this report was placed before the learned Munsif and he passed the following order:Amin reports that the value of the house is Rs. 750. The plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Pt. Baijnath Vs. Superintendent, Central Jail
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All62
Allsop, J.1. The question which we have to answer is whether the Governor-General had power validly to enact Section 2 of ordinance 14 of 1943. His powers of legislation are derived from the provisions of Section 72 set out in Schedule 9, Government of India Act, 1935. These provisions as amended are as follows:The Governor-General may in oases of emergency make and promulgate ordinances for the peace and good government of British India or any part thereof and any ordinance so made shall have the like force of law as an Act passed by the Indian Legislature; but the power of making ordinances under this section is subject to the like restrictions as the power of the Indian Legislature to make laws; and any ordinance made under this section is subject to the like disallowance as an Act passed by the Indian Legislature and may be controlled or superseded by any such Act.There is a provision in the India and Burma (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1940, that the Governor-General shall not be su...
Tag this Judgment!Ghassu and anr. Vs. Babu Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All25
Dar, J.1. This is an application in revision against a judgment and decree dated 26th September 1942, of the District Judge, Mainpuri, by which he affirmed a judgment and decree dated 17th June 1942, of a Revenue Officer of Mainpuri in a suit for redemption under Section 12, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act (27 of 1934). On 7th April 1920, Ganga Ram, an occupancy tenant of village Nagla Khujaria Mazra Bajhera, made a usufructuary mortgage of his occupancy holding in favour of Har Sahai for Rs. 300. Both the original mortgagor and the mortgagee are now dead. The plaintiffs alleging that they are the legal representatives of the mortgagor and that the mortgage has been satisfied out of the usufruct, raised an action in the Court of the Assistant Collector, First Class, Mainpuri under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act, for redemption of the above mortgage against the legal representatives of the mortgagee. One of the pleas in defence taken was that the mortgage in suit being of an occ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›