Allahabad Court December 1945 Judgments
Rani Amrit Kunwar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All306
Braund, J.1. This is a case referred to us under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act, 1922, by a strong Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee is Rani Amrit Kunwar Sahiba, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rani.' The Rani is the wife of Raja Ravi Sher Singh Bahadur, the Ruler of Kalsia State, and is the sister of His Highness the present Maharaja of Nabha State. Kalsia and Nabha States were formerly part of what were known as the Cis-Sutlej States, which are now under the superintendence of the Agent to the Governor-General, Punjab States.2. The Rani for some years past has lived at Dehradun in British India with her sons and daughters who are being educated there and it is common ground that in the year of assessment she was resident in British India within the meaning of Section 4A, Income-tax Act, 1922. The relevant accounting year is 1938-39; and the relevant assessment year is 1939-40. In the assessment year, the Rani received at Dehradun a sum of Rs. 14,744 from Kalsia ...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Amrit Kunwar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, C.P. and U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1945
Reported in: [1946]14ITR561(All)
BRAUND, J. - This is a case referred to us under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, by a strong Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee is Rani Amrit Kunwar Sahiba, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rani.' The Rani is the wife of Raja Ravi Sher Singh Bahadur, the Ruler of Kalsia State, and is the sister of His Highness the present Maharaja of Nabha State. Kalsia and Nabha States were for merly part of what were known as the Cis-Sutlej States, which are now under the superintendence of the Agent to the Governor-General, Punjab States.The Rani for some years past has lived at Dehra Dun in British India with her sons and daughters who are being educated there and it is common ground that in the year of assessment she was resident in British India within the meaning of Section 4A of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The relevant accounting year is 1938-39; and the relevant assessment year is 1939-40. In the assessment year, the Rani received at Dehra Dun a sum of Rs. 14,744 ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor, Through Bachan Lal Vs. Subedar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All365
Yorke, J.1. This is a reference by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Etawah recommending that this Court do set aside under Section 215 an order made by a Magistrate committing a case to the Court of Session for trial. Put shortly, what happened was that there were cross cases, and in one case a charge was framed under Section 307, Penal Code and, therefore, the case had to be committed for trial to the Sessions Court. In the cross case the offences in respect of which the learned Magistrate thought it desirable to frame charges appeared to him to fall under Sections 147 and 323/149, Penal Code and Section 22, Cattle Trespass Act. All of these were offences triable by a Magistrate of the first class, but nonetheless the learned Magistrate committed the accused for trial to the Sessions Court on the ground that as he had committed the cross case to the Sessions Court, the interests of justice demanded that this case should also be committed to the said Court. The learned Assistant Session...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Shri Kishan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All371
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge at Bareilly recommending that the conviction and sentence of one Sri Kishan for an offence under Section 81(4), Defence of India Rules, for the breach of a condition prescribed in a licence granted under the U.P. Standard Cloth Control Order of 1943 should be quashed and set aside. It is an admitted fact that Sri Kishan in whose favour this reference has been made was the representative of one Sheo Narain who was the owner of a firm dealing in cloth situated at Baheri. This firm was that of retail dealers. Sheo Narain also owned a bigger firm situated at Bareilly which was a firm of wholesale dealers. The fact that Sheo Narain was alone the licensee of the two firms is admitted. Sheo Narain and a servant of his named Sita Ram were prosecuted along with Sri Kishan for having contravened the conditions of the licence granted to Sheo Narain. Curiously enough the trying Magistrate acquitted both Sheo Narain and Sita Ram and...
Tag this Judgment!Gulzari Lal Vs. Manager, Court of Wards of B. Parshottam Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All415
Bennett, J.1. This is a first appeal under Section 45, Encumbered Estates Act. The sole question which it raises is whether the Collector is empowered under Section 2i of the Act to sell the property of the debtor by private negotiation. This question arises upon a claim made by the appellant, Gulzari Lal, under Section 11 of the Act. This claim was made on 10th September 1948, long after the proceedings had been completed in the Court of Special Judge and some time also after the property which Gulzari Lal claimed had been transferred by private sale to one Hazari Lal. The Special Judge disallowed the claim as it was very belated and as the property claimed had been transferred to a third person for the liquidation of the debts of the applicant under Section 4. Against this decision it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was no valid compliance with the provisions of Section 24, inasmuch as that section does not empower the Collector to sell the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Guttoo Mal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All351
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge at Agra. It arises out of a case in which one Guttomal, the proprietor of a big General Merchandise shop in Agra, was tried by a learned Magistrate for an offence under Section 6/13, Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance (No. 35 [XXXV] of 1943). The case against Guttomal, as put by the prosecution, was that on a certain date when a supply inspector visited his shop it was found that no price-list had been put up at a prominent place in the shop as required by an order passed by the Controller General of Civil Supplies which was duly notified in the Gazette. It is admitted that Guttomal dealt in boot polishes amongst other things but not in boot polishes of any foreign brand. It is clear from the judgment of the learned trying Magistrate himself that no boot polish of any foreign brand was in stock in the shop of Guttomal on the date in question. The notification in the Gazette which contains the order pass...
Tag this Judgment!Shrinand Lal Kapoor Vs. Sm. Chandra Kanti Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All385
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal by the husband against whom a suit for maintenance was decreed by the learned Civil Judge of Allahabad. The suit was brought in forma pauperis and after the necessary proceedings, it culminated into a compromise decree, the terms of which, such as are material for the purpose of this appeal, are as below:(i) If the defendant makes a default in paying monthly allowance for six months, the plaintiff will be entitled to realise the sum by execution of this decree. The maintenance will be charged on the property detailed below, (ii) The defendants shall pay a sum of Us. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) to the plaintiff and she will have full proprietary right over this sum and the defendant will have no right in that amount whatsoever....Then follow certain other conditions which are not material. There are, however, two other clauses which are germane to the controversy before us:(a) Babu Kanhaiya Lai has no objection to the creation of this charge over whole of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Agrahri Vs. Dhaunkal Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All432
Pathak, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal. The decree-holder respondent held a simple money decree in execution of which he attached the two houses in dispute. The judgment-debtor raised an objection to the attachment and sale of the houses in dispute upon the ground that he was an agriculturist and under Section 60(1)(c), Civil P.C., the houses were not liable to attachment and sale. It appears that this decree was put in execution for the first time in 1936 and during the pendency of the execution proceedings an application was made by the judgment-debtor under Section 5, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, by which he prayed for instalments. He prayed, that the decree in question might be converted into a decree for payment by instalments. At that time, the houses in dispute now had been attached by the decree, holder. Counsel for the judgment-debtor made a statement in Court agreeing to the continuance of the attachment of the two houses along with other properties and stating t...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad Ullah Khan Vs. Shah Mohammad Taqi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All493
Pathak, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The facts may be shortly stated. On 22nd July 1941 defendant 3 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant 1 in respect of the property in dispute. The plaintiff's case is that he and the defendant 3 were co-sharers and that he has got a preferential right of preemption against the vendee. Defendant 2 was impleaded upon the ground that he was the real purchaser and allowed the name of defendant 1 to be entered in the sale deed as his benamidar. As regards the sale consideration, the plaintiff averred that the sale price as entered in the sale deed, namely, Rs. 1100 was not the true sale price and the real consideration of the sale deed was only Rs. 500. The suit was defended inter alia on the ground that defendant 2 was the real purchaser, and that Rs. 1100 was the true sale consideration. The learned Munsif before whom the suit came on for trial came to the conclusion that defendant 2 was the real purchas...
Tag this Judgment!Chotey Lal Vs. Bholar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All387
ORDERWali Ullah, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 276, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. It arises under the following circumstances: The applicant, Chhote Lal, obtained a decree in respect of the arrears of land revenue against one Mt. Munia, widow of Narpat deceased. It appears that the applicant Chhote Lai was a lambardar of the Mohal and Mt. Munia was in possession holding a widow's estate of the share of her husband Narpat, in this village. The lambardar paid the land revenue to Government in respect of the share held by Mt. Munia as well Thereafter, as mentioned already, he obtained a simple money-decree for recovery of the amount said to have been paid as land revenue on behalf of Mt. Munia. Mt. Munia then died and Bholar alias Pehlwan succeeded to the property of Narpat deceased as a reversioner. The applicant decree-holder proceeded to execute the decree which he had obtained against Mt. Munia by attachment and sale of the property of her husband in the hands of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »