Allahabad Court February 1947 Judgments
Mt. Maharani Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All7
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Mt. Maharani alias Madhavi Wati appeals against her conviction and sentence of transportation for life under Section 302, Penal Code.2. The prosecution case is that she murdered Sukhdeo, aged six or seven years, on the evening of 22-9-1945, at her house, probably on account of the greed to possess the ornaments-the boy was wearing. The boy was in a way related to her. Her husband's father was brother of the boy's great-grand-father.3. Lallu, a boy eight years of age, deposes that he, Sukhdeo deceased and Ram Sarup were playing in the athai (open space in front of the house) that evening. The accused who was sitting on the stairs came and took Sukhdeo inside her house. Sukhdeo was at the time wearing churas and ear-rings. Ram Sarup and Lallu were not wearing any ornaments. Later, there was beat of drum in the village and some people asked Mm where Sukhdeo had gone. He is unable to tell the names of these persons.4. Enquiry was made from Lallu on the basis of the inf...
Tag this Judgment!Durga NaraIn Singh Vs. Commr. of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All10
Malik, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act (11[XI] of 1922) by the Income, tax Appellate Tribunal.2. Raja Bahadur Major Raja Durga Narain Singh of Tirwa owned considerable property in the district of Farrukhabad. During the assessment for the year 1941-42 the Income-tax Officer included the income derived from toddy, sale of grass, sale of moonj and patawar, fisheries, sale of jungle trees and sale of mangoes as income which was assessable to income-tax. An objection was raised on behalf of the assessee that the income from the sources mentioned above was agricultural income and. the Income-tax Officer was, therefore, not entitled to include the amount in the assessable income of the assessee. The Income-tax Officer had also included interest from the arrears of rent received by the assessee as taxable income.3. The assessee appealed to the appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income tax who, however, upheld the decision of the Income-tax Officer.4. On further a...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Bahadur Major Raja Durga NaraIn Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1947
Reported in: [1947]15ITR235(All)
This is a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.Raja Bahadur Major Raja Durga Narain Singh of Tirwa owned considerable property in the district of Farrukhabad. During the assessment for the year 1941-42 the Income-tax Officer included the income derived from toddy, sale of grass, sale of moonj and patawar, fisheries, sale of jungle trees and sale of mangoes as income which was assessable to income-tax. An objection was raised on behalf of the assessee that the income from the sources mentioned above was agricultural income and the Income-tax Officer was, therefore, not entitled to include the amount in the assessable income of the assessee. The Income-tax Officer had also included interest from the arrears of rent received by the assessee as taxable income.The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax who, however, upheld the decision of the Income-tax Officer.On further appeal to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Upper India Chamber of Commerce Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All64
Braund, J.1. This is a reference to the High Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 (2), Income-tax Act, 1922. The applicant is the Upper India Chamber of Commerce, Cawn-pore, and is hereinafter called the 'Assessee.'2. The facts lie in a small compass. The Assessee is a Company registered, without the word 'Limited,' under Section 26, Companies Act, 1913. The only point about this section of the Indian Companies Act to which there is any need to draw attention is that, so far from the section imposing on a company registered under it any prohibition either against carrying on a business or against making 'profits' it impliedly recognizes the capacity of such a Company to make 'profits' by expressly regulating their disposal. In pointing this out, I do not overlook that in the case of most, if not of all, Companies registered without the word 'Limited,' the profit making motive of the Company is subordinate to, and more often than not wholly displaced by, its more ...
Tag this Judgment!Upper India Chamber of Commerce Cawnpore Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1947
Reported in: [1947]15ITR263(All)
BRAUND, J. - This is a reference to the High Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The applicant is the Upper India Chamber of Commerce, Cawnpore, and is hereinafter called the 'assessee'.The facts lie in a small compass. The assessee is a company registered, without the word 'limited', under Section 26 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The only point about this section of the Indian Companies Act to which there is any need to draw attention is that so far from the section imposing on a company registered under it any prohibition either against carrying on a business or against making 'profits,' it impliedly recognizes the capacity of such a company to make 'profits' by expressly regulating their disposal. In pointing this out, I do not overlook that in the case of most, if not of all, companies registered without the word 'limited,' the profit making motive of the company is subordinate to, and more often than not wholly d...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sup Singh and ors. Vs. Kalap Nath Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All33
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge of Azamgarh. The facts which are necessary for the purposes of this appeal, are these:2. A suit for possession and damages with respect to a tenancy plot was brought by five plaintiffs of whom the third, fourth and fifth were minors and the first two were majors, one of the defendants raised the plea that he had been a tenant since 1941.3. The issue of tenancy was referred by the learned Munsif to the revenue Court under Section 288, U.P. Tenancy Act. Before the revenue Court, a compromise was arrived at between the plaintiffs and the defendant, under which the former accepted the latter as a tenant. The learned Munsif passed a decree in accordance with that finding. An appeal was preferred against the decree of the learned Munsif by four, out of the five plaintiffs, including the three minors. Bishwa Nath Singh preferred no appeal; nor was he arrayed as a pro forma respondent. 4. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Mokand Vs. Jiwan Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All58
Sinha, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the learned Additional Civil and Small Cause Court Judge of Morarabad. The only point argued before us is one of jurisdiction.2. Dhoridhar and others executed a mortgage with possession, with regard to certain zamindari property lying in Tabsil Bisauli of the district of Budaun, in favour of Ramnarain. Das for Rs. 1500 on 16th August 1907. The original parties to the transaction are dead. The plaintiffs are the heirs and representatives of the mortgagors. The defendants are the heirs of the mortgagees.3. The plaintiff's who represent the mortgagors, made an application in the Court of the Munsif of Chandausi for redemption of the above mortgage under Section 12, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, (Act 27 [XXVII] of 1934). There was a further prayer for the benefits of the U.P. Debt Redemption Act.4. One of the pleas raised in defence was that the suit should have been instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Budaun within...
Tag this Judgment!Narottam Das Vs. Jagannath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All44
Sinha, J.1. This is an application in-revision directed against an order of the learned Additional Civil Judge of Moradabad by which he remanded the case to the Court of the learned Additional Munsif for trial according to law.2. One Lala Jagannath brought a suit against two persons, Lala Narotam Dass and Lala Banshidhar, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1070-6-. Banshidhar is a co-sharer in a village of, hich Narotam is the Lamberdar. Jagannath obtained a decree against Banshidhar and in execution thereof he purchased the profits due to Banshidhar from Narotam Das, as the Lamberdar of the Mohal for a period of three years. He then' brought the suit which has given rise to the present proceedings, in the Court of the Additional Munsif of Amroha, for the recovery of the profits for the period in question.3. The suit was resisted on a variety' of ' grounds, but principally on the ground that the civil Court had no jurisdiction, as it was a suit by an assignee of a cosharer for profits and fe...
Tag this Judgment!Brindraban Vs. Shafiq Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All335
Mathur, J.1. This is a creditor's appeal arising out of proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act. It appears that three persons, Shaikh Shafiq Ahmad, Sheikh Habib Ahmad, sons, and Mt. Shakila Bibi, daughter of Sheikh Siddiq Ahmad, presented an application under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act on 28th October 1936. Subsequently when the application was sent to the Special Judge they filed a written statement under Section 8 of the same Act on 16th October 1937. The Special Judge issued notice calling upon all persons having claims to present a written statement of their claims. Accordingly the present creditor appellant filed a written statement under Section 9, on 4th July 1988. In this he claimed that a decree for Rs. 6000 be awarded to him in respect of a mortgage deed dated 1st August 1930 executed by Siddiq Ahmad, father of the landlord applicants, to recover a sum of Rs. 3000. While the proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act were pending the landlord applicants filed a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›