Allahabad Court October 1949 Judgments
Sheo NaraIn Vs. Bhallar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All352
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. This is a plaintiff a application in revision against a decree of a Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Kanpur, dismissing his suit.2. The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 956 on the basis of Bahi Khata accounts. According to him, the defendant entered into various transactions of sale and purchase of bullion between 24th October 1944 and 13th May 1946. The allegation in the plaint was that the plaintiff was an arhatia and also did transactions on his own behalf in the sale and purchase of bullion and that the defendant under his arhat entered into transactions.3. The defence was that no transactions were entered into at all, but that the amount shown by the plaintiff as credited to the defendant's account was a loan advanced by the defendant to the plaintiff. In the alternative it was pleaded that if the transactions were entered into by the defendant, then they were wagering and the plaintiff could not recover.4. The trial Court came to the co...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Lal Vs. Madari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All237
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 6A, Court-fees Act, by the defendant who has been called upon to make good a deficiency in court fee in regard to the amount of set-off claimed by him in the suit.2. It appears that the plaintiffs respondents filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 38,000. The plain-tiff's case was that they acted as Commission Agents of the defendant and supplied vegetables and fruits to the Military authorities at Jhansi on behalf of the defendant who is a vegetable merchant.3. The claim has been laid at Rs. 38,000 as the unpaid price for the supplies made by the plaintiffs. The defendant contested the suit. He filed a written statement in which he admitted that he entered into a contract with the Military authorities for the supply of vegetables and fruits. Thereafter, according to him, he entered into a contract with the plaintiffs under which the plaintiffs were to supply the vegetables and fruits to the Military authorities on his behalf on certain terms....
Tag this Judgment!Raghubar Dayal Singhal Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All241
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against the acquittal of the respondent of an offence under Section 12, U. P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (Act XXII [22] of 1947).2. The respondent is the proprietor of a news agency called the Singhal News Agency, Aligrah. Admittedly, he did not allow one day's holiday in the week to his employees.3. The contention for the prosecution is that the respondent's failure to allow one day's holiday in a week to his employees amounted to a contravention of the provisions of Section 12, U. P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (Act XXII [22] of 1947). The defence of the accused was that he did not contravene these provisions in so far as his employees did not work for more than 48 hours in a week and that Section 12 really enjoned the giving of one day's holiday to such employees whose total period of employment in the week was less (Sic.) than 48 hours. The learned Magistrate accepted the respondent's contention...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlapat Moti Lal Vs. Commissioner, Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All249; [1950]18ITR812(All)
Malik, C.J.1. This reference under Section 66 (2), Income-tax Act (XI [11] of 1922) has had a chequered history, It came up before several Benches from time to time but was not decided while the connected case No. 528 of 1936 which was a reference against the order made in the assessment year 1933-34 was decided in the year 1939.2. The assessment year in question was 1934-35 and the previous year was the calendar year 1933.3. The Union Indian Sugar Mills Co., Ltd., Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Mills) was wound up on a creditor's petition by a winding up order dated 28th May 1926. On 22nd November 1926, an application was filed by a partner ship, known as Kamlapat Moti Lal (hereinafter referred to as the firm) offering to take a mortgage of the Mill or in the alternative to purchase the same. The terms of such mortgage or of sale were given in the application filed on that date, On 25th February 1927, this Court approved the scheme of making a mortgage of the Mills to the firm...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Income-tax Assessment of Misrimal Gulabchand of Beawar for the ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All270
ORDERMalik, C.J.1. The facts of this case are very simple. The assessee, Mishri Mal Gulab Chand, is a Hindu undivided family doing business at Beawar, Ajmer-Merwara. The relevant assessment year is 1944-45. In the relevant account year, the assessee was a resident and ordinarily resident in British India. The asses-see had speculated individually and in partnership in various commodities in British India and also in Indian States. From its individual business carried on in British India the assessee had made a profit of Rs. 38,473, while from its individual business in the Indian States it suffered a loss of Rs. 25,391. In computing total income from business of the assessee the Income-tax Officer did not debit the loss suffered in Indian States. This decision was upheld by the Assistant Income-tax Commissioner. On appeal the Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision of the Income-tax Commissioner and held that the first proviso to Section 24 (1) of the Act did not apply. On an applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Kasudhan Vs. SheodIn Kasudhan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All286
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of the lower appellate Court by which the plaintiff's suit for pre-emption was dismissed. It appears that on 19th October 1948, a sale deed in respect of anna 0-1-3 and odd share of zamindari in Mauza Mundela Misir was executed by defendant 2, in favour of defendant 1. The sale consideration mentioned in the deed was Rs. 2 500. Subsequently, defendant S, who is the own brother of defendant 2, and also a co-sharer in the property sold, managed to secure a sale deed from defendant 1, in lien of the same consideration, viz., Rs. 3,500. The plaintiff instituted a suit for pre-emption with the allegation that the second transfer executed by defendant I, the vendee under the sale deed of 19th October 1948, in favour of defendant 3, was made without obtaining the necessary permission of the Assistant Collector under Section 24, United Provinces Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act (XIV [14] of 1940) The plaintiff went on ...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Vs. Ved Roop Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All293
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. This is a decree-holder's application in revision against an order of the learned Munsif of Moradabad allowing an application for the restoration of an objection under Order 21, Rule 97, Civil P. C. The objection was dismissed on the date of hearing for want of prosecution. The objector made an application for restoration of his objection, under Sections 141, 151 and Order 9. Rule 9, Civil P. C., alleging that on the date of hearing he was sitting in the court compound in front of the court room but as he was hard of hearing, he did not hear his case being called. The decree-holder objected to the application being allowed on the ground that none of the sections under which the application was made applied. He did not challenge the fact that the objector was hard of hearing. The learned Munsif held that although Order 9, Rule 9, Civil P. C. did not apply, he could restore an objection under his inherent powers. He, therefore, restored the objection on payment of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!The Jagat Bus Service Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All295; [1950]18ITR13(All)
Malik, C.J. 1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, under Section 65 (1), Income-tax Act of 1922. The assessment year in question was 1943-44 and the financial year was 1942 43. The assessee was a registered firm, Messrs. Jagat Bus Service, Saharanpur. It carries on the business of running motor cars, buses and trucks on hire. On 12th June 1940, the assessee entered into an agreement with the Tehri Durbar for plying motor vehicles on hire on the Munikireti-Dhaulsut-Deoprayag-Kirtinagar Motor Road within the territories of the Tehri Garhwal State. The agreement was for a period of five years commencing from 13th April 1940, and the assessee was given monopoly rights for plying motor car vehicles on hire on this road. Before this agreement was entered into, motor vehicles could run on this road but they were liable to pay a tax of Rs. 10 per trip per motor vehicle. Under this agreement, the assessee had to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 annually as nazarana in the b...
Tag this Judgment!Sajjad Ali Vs. Shahid Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All316
Agarwala, J. 1. These are two connected appeals arising out of two suits. First Appeal No. 167 of 1943 arises out of Suit No. 37 of 1941 filed by Saiyid Sajjad Ali, the present appellant. The defendants to that suit were Saiyid Shahid Ali and Saiyid Zahid Ali, both brothers, the present respondents. This suit was for possession over a portion of plot No. 377 which had been, alleged to have been constructed upon by Shahid Ali respondent 1, for recovery of Rs. 500/- as the price of bricks and other materials utilised by the said Saiyid Shahid Ali in constructing his house, for the recovery of Rs. 100/- as price of the trees cut and appropriated by him, for damages for making pits in plot No. 377 and for a perpetual injunction restraining Saiyid Shahid Ali from interfering with the right of way of Saiyid Sajjad Ali through the plot in dispute. 2. The other appeal No. 478 of 1943 arises out of a Suit No. 536 of 1941 in which Saiyid Shahid Ali, respondent 1, was the plaintiff and Saiyid Saj...
Tag this Judgment!Mishrimal Gulabchand of Beawar, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1949
Reported in: [1950]18ITR75(All)
MALIK, C.J. - The facts of this case are very simple. The assessee, Mishrimal Gulabchand, is a Hindu undivided family doing business at Beawar Ajmer-Merwara. The relevant assessment year is 1944-45. In the relevant account year the assessee was a resident and ordinarily resident in British India. The assessee had speculated individually and in partnership in various commodities in British India and also in Indian States. From its individual business carried on in British India the assessee had made a profit of Rs. 38.473, while from its individual business in the Indian States it suffered a loss of Rs. 25,391. In computing the total income from business of the assessee the Income-tax Officer did not debit the loss suffered in Indian States. This decision was upheld by the Assistant Income-tax Commissioner. On appeal the Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision of the Income-tax Commissioner and held that the proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act did not apply. On an application made by t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »