Allahabad Court March 1945 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.
Ram Lal Bechairam Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All8
Malik, J.1. The facts of this case are very simple. Messrs. Ramlal Bechai Ram, a trading undivided Hindu family, had their Head Office, together with a cloth shop at Semohi in the Jaunpur district in British India. They maintained also a branch cloth shop at Bhadohi in the Benares State. They were residents of Jaunpur in British India. In their books at Bhadohi the firm maintained an account in the name of their own Semohi shop. Conversely in the Semohi books they had similarly an account in the name of the Bhadohi shop. Prom time to time goods were sent from one shop to the other. In the year in question that is in the assessment year 1938-39 it was found that cloth worth Rs. 65,203-13-9 was sent from the Bhaclohi shop to the Semohi shop. The invoice price of these goods was not, however, their cost price to the Bhaclohi shop but it included a profit margin equal to the profit that the Bhadohi shop would or might, have derived from its customers in Bhadohi had the cloth been actually ...
Shil Gange and anr. Vs. B. Manoharlal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All346
Iqbal Ahmad, C.J.1. This is an appeal by judgment-debtors whose application for amendment of a decree under Section 8, Debt Redemption Act (13 of 1940), has been dismissed by the Court below on the ground that on the date of the advance of the loan which culminated in the decree, the appellants were not agriculturists. The facts are no longer in controversy and are as follows:2. On 23rd January 1932 one Prabhu Lal who was the manager of the joint Hindu family of which the present appellants are members executed a mortgage deed in favour of Manohar Lal, decree-holder respondent, for a sum of Rs. 5618. This consideration was made up of amounts due on the basis of two promissory notes executed by Prabhu Lal in favour of Manohar Lal. Manohar Lal put the mortgage into suit in the year 1933 and eventually obtained a final decree for the sale on 14th March 1936. The judgment-debtor-appellants applied for the amendment of this decree under Section 8, Debt Redemption Act. The application of the...
Mt. Munna TewaraIn and anr. Vs. Ajodhya Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All370
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders against a judgment of the learned Civil Judge of Basti by which he refused their prayer for execution of the decree. The facts briefly are these : One Bhabuti Prasad instituted a suit against the appellant Mt. Munna Tewarain, which was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge with costs. The costs amounted to Rs. 1500. Bhabuti Prasad preferred an appeal to this Court and made an application for stay of execution of the decree for costs. Stay was granted conditional on his furnishing security for the costs of the trial Court and the probable costs of the High Court. He offered one Ajodhia Prasad as a surety. Ajodhia Prasad filed a registered security bond on 9th May 1935. The appeal to this Court was dismissed on 2nd August 1938 and the respondent was awarded Rs. 1300 on account of the costs of the appeal. On 12th September 1936 Bhabuti Prasad had made an application under Section 4, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. The decree-holders ma...
Ram Lal Bechairam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1945
Reported in: [1946]14ITR1(All)
MALIK, J. - The facts of this case are very simple. Messrs. Ram Lal Bechai Ram, a trading undivided Hindu family, had their head office together with a cloth shop at Semohi in the Jaunpur district in British India. They maintained also a branch cloth shop at Bhadohi in the Benares State. They were the residents of Jaunpur in British India. In their books at Bhadohi the firm maintained an account in the name of their own Semohi shop. Conversely in the Semohi books they had similarly an account in the name of the Bhadohi shop. From time to time goods were sent from one shop to the other. In the year in question, that is, in the assessment year 1938-39 it was found that cloth worth Rs. 65,203-13-9 was sent from the Bhadohi shop to the Semohi shop. The invoice price of these goods was not, however, their cost price to the Bhadohi shop but is included a profit margin equal to the profit that the Bhadohi shop would or might have derived from its customers in Bhadohi had the cloth been actual...
Pearey Lal and ors. Vs. Solu Gir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All58
ORDERMalik, J.1. The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 261-5-0 on the basis of a bond dated 30th July 1931. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 165 and had agreed to pay the amount in three instalments of Rs. 55 each. The first instalment was to be paid on 25th January 1932. The bond provided that in default of payment of any instalment the whole amount, then remaining due, would become payable. No instalment was paid. The defendant had paid a sum of Rs. 10 on 24th July 1934 and another sum of Rs. 10 on 3rd July 1937. The first payment of Rs. 10 was entered on the back of the bond and it bore the defendant's thumb impression. The entry was as follows: 'To-day the 24th July 1934, received Rs. 10 towards the bond.'2. The defendant did not appear but the Court below held that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation as the cause of action to file the suit arose on 25th January 1932, the date of the first default, and the payment dated 24th J...
Asa Ram Vs. B. Asa Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All133
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal by an unsuccessful pre-emptor whose suit for preemption has been dismissed by the Courts below. The facts briefly are these : On 11th February 1910, one Mirimal sold two plots of land in the town of Shamli, district Muzaffarnagar, Nos. 8967 and 3969, in favour of two men, Asa Ram and Jado Rai. The plaintiff whose name is also Asa Ram claimed preemption with respect to plot No. 3969 only as Shafi-khalit and Shafi-jar. He based his claim on his ownership of the adjacent plot No. 3970, which, along with the plot No. 3969, has a common drain. He confined his claim to one of the plots, on the allegation that this right of vicinage extended only to plot No. 3969 and not to 3967. He alleged that the ostensible sale consideration of Rs. 4000 was not the real consideration. The real consideration, according to him, was Rs. 1800 only. The defence, in the main, was that there was no custom of pre-emption in the area in which the plots in dispute lie. It was also plea...
Girdhari and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All291
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is an application in revision by two persons, Girdhari and Nathi, who were convicted by a learned Magistrate of an offence under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, and who appealed to the learned Sessions Judge at Muttra from that conviction but with no success. Each one of them was awarded a fine of Rs. 200. They have now come up in revision to this Court. The charge against the applicants was that they had worked a cream separator in village Dhana Teja without having the premises registered and that in doing so they had contravened an order passed by the District Magistrate of Muttra on 22nd September 1943. I find a slip on the record which purports to be a true copy of the said order of the District Magistrate of Muttra. It runs as follows:No person shall separate cream from milk by machine without getting the premises registered with the D.S.O.2. On 19th October 1943, Abdul Samad Khan, a Sub-Inspector of Police, on receiving secret information proceeded to vi...
Emperor Vs. Naubat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All344
Mulla, J. 1. This is an application in revision filed on behalf of the Provincial Government for enhancement of the sentences imposed upon Naubat, Udeybaz, Pirna and Budhpal, who were tried with six others by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Aligarh on a charge under Section 395 read with Section 397, Penal Code, and were upon conviction given a sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment only with the exception of Budhpal who was given a still lesser sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment only. The case relates to a dacoity which was committed in the night between 4th and 5th November 1942, at the house of one Daulat Singh of village Burha in the district of Aligarh. The first information report of the dacoity was made by Jumma, the chaukidar of the village, at Police Station Akrabad at 9 A. M. on 5th November 1942. In that report it was stated that the house of Daulat Singh had been raided by a gang of twenty or twenty-two dacoits none of whom had been recognized or...
Mt. Sukhia and ors. Vs. Pt. Kirpa Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All348
ORDERSinha, J. 1. This is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P. C., arising out of an application under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act, for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage granted by one Bhaggu on 17th September 1902. The property mortgaged consisted of some occupancy tenancy and was for a sum of Rs. 395. Plaintiff 1 is the daughter and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the daughter's sons of the mortgagor. The mortgagor died some time between the years 1920 to 1922. The present suit was brought by means of an application under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief, Act.2. The defence in the main was that plaintiff 1 was no heir under Act 2 of 1901 which must govern the rights of the parties, and plaintiffs 2 and 3 had no title, inasmuch as they did not share in cultivation with the deceased mortgagor at the time of his death. The learned Assistant Collector granted an unconditional redemption on the finding that the entire mortgage money had been paid up. He held ...
Abdul Majid and ors. Vs. QamaruddIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All375
Bennett, J.1. The only question for consideration in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff in a pre-emption suit made the demands required by Mahomedan law. It appears that the two demands required, namely the talab-i-mowasibat and the talab-i-ishtishhad were both made in the presence of the vendor and the vendees and also in the presence of the same witnesses. But at the talab-i-ishtishhad there was an omission to refer expressly to the fact that the talab-i-mowasibat had already been made. The trial Court took a strict view of the requirements of the Mahomedan law and held that it was essential that at the time of making the talab-i-ishtishhad reference should be made to the fact that the talab-i-mowasibat had already been made.2. In first appeal the Civil Judge took a different view and after considering a number of authorities came to the conclusion that as both the vendor and the vendees and the witnesses had all been present when the two demands were made and there was no d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›