Allahabad Court September 1949 Judgments
Special Manager, Court of Wards, Naraindas Narsinghdas Vs. Commissione ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1949
Reported in: [1950]18ITR204(All)
This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee is the Court of Wards representing the estate of Naraindas Narsinghdas of Gorakhpur. An order was passed by the Income-tax Officer against the assessee under Section 25A of the Income-tax Act. Notice of this order was saved on the assessee on the 30th of January, 1945. An appeal in the prescribed form was filed before the appellate Assistant commissioner on the 19th of February, 1945, by one Nabir Ahmad, Mukhtar-e-am, on behalf of the Special Manager, Court of Wards, representing the estate of Naraindas Narsinghdas, Gorakhpur. The appellate Assistant Commissioner returned the memorandum of appeal on the ground that it was not signed and verified as require dander the rules. The memorandum of appeal was received by the Special manager on the 21st of February, 1945, and on the same day he passed the following orde : - 'Most urgent. Mukhtar-e-am to comply.' The signature and the verification on the memorandum of a...
Tag this Judgment!Bhag Chand Vs. Hanuman Mistri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All396
ORDERSapru, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision against an order of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court of Basti decreeing the plaintiff's suit with costs and future and pendente lite interest at 3 per cent. per annum. The plaintiff's story is that on 22-5-1944 the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant for the supply of 50,000 first class bricks at controlled rates, between the 5th June and 19-6 1944. The number of first class bricks supplied by the defendant during this period was 18,500 and that of second class bricks 2,77,749. The plaintiff's case is that the controlled rate fixed for first class bricks was Rs. 16 per thousand and that the rate for second class bricks had been settled at Rs. 13 per thousand. According to the plaintiff's calculation, the total price of the bricks supplied was Bs, 656-12-0. His allegation is that a sum of RS. 1000 had been paid in advance by him to the defendant. If this price of bricks supplied which comes to Rs. 656-12...
Tag this Judgment!Hardutt Ray Gajadhar Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1949
Reported in: [1950]18ITR106(All)
This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and three questions have been referred to us for answer. The questions are as follows :-'(1) Whether on the true construction of the deed of partnership, dated 15th September, 1932, Krishna Murari was admitted as a partner of the firm or was he admitted to the benefits of partnership ?(2) If Krishna Murari was admitted as a partner, could such a deed of partnership be registered under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the rules made under the Act and(3) Whether the application dated 23rd July, 1943, was in order regard being had to Rules 2-6B of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922 ?'The facts briefly are that Gajadhar Ram and Benarsi Lal were cousins. Gajadhar Ram had two sons, Sundar Mal and Jagdish Prasad. Sundar Mal is dead and his widow had adopted Krishna Murari, son of Jagdish Prasad. Gajadhar Ram, Benarsi Lal, Jagdish Prasad and Krishna Murari were members of a joint Hindu family, and on the 15...
Tag this Judgment!Dominion of India Through General Manager, Eastern Punjab Rly. Vs. Mod ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1949
Reported in: AIR1959All732
ORDERL.S. Mishra, J.1. This is a revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. It arises out of a suit instituted by Messrs. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. proprietors of the Modi Vanspati Manufacturing Co., Begama-bad, district Meerut, and firm Gheesa Ram Shiv Narain of Lucknow. The claim was for recovery of Rs. 135/- as compensation in respect of a few missing tins of vanaspati oil from two consignments sent from Begamabad on the North Western Railway to Lucknow on the East Indian Railway.The suit was filed against the Governor-Gene-ral-in-Council through the General Managers, North Western and East Indian Railways. The Governor-General and the North Western Railway are now represented respectively by the Dominion of India and by the Eastern Punjab Railway. The alteration of names is due to the new state of affairs which has come to prevail in consequence of the Indian Independence (Rights, Liabililies and Properties) Order of 1947 and the partition of the country between the Domin...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Har Bux Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1949
Reported in: AIR1953All312
Kidwai, J. 1. Respondents 1 to 3 instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif, Barabanki, for recovery of possession of certain land which formed part of 'ahata no. 1 in village Telwari in the district of Barabanki by demolition of constructions standing upon it and by removal of certain pegs and other alleged encroachments. The suit was contested by the defendants and the trial Court framed four issues. 2. On the date fixed for evidence namely 20-10-1943 the plaintiffs were present in person with their advocate, Mr. Durga Dayal, and the defendants were represented by Mr. Ajodhia Prasad. Only one of the defendants, Jagmohan Singh, respondent 4 was present in person. On 20-10-1943 the Court recorded the following proceedings: 'Parties and their pleaders agree that if Raj Bahadur Singh, plaintiff 2 states with 'Gangajali' in his hand that the defendants have encroached upon the plaintiffs' land and the encroached portion is not on the old foundation, the suit be decreed with costs, other...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Charan Lal and ors. Vs. B. Harcharan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All665
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 6 (a), U. P. Court-fees Act against an order of the learned District Judge of Moradabad requiring the appellants to pay further court-feeon their memorandum of appeal filed before him. The appellants were co-debtors of the principal landlord-applicant in certain proceeding under the Encumbered Estates Act, Under Section 9 of the Act the learned Special Judge had determined the proportionate liabilities of the applicant. This determination was challenged in appeal by the appellants before the learned District Judge. Treating the appeal as one only against an order, the appellants had paid the usual court-fee. 2. The office reported that ad valorem court-fee was required, inasmuch as the appellants had sought the cancellation of the decrees which, rightly or wrongly, had been passed by the Special Judge. The learned District Judge agreed with this report, and ordered that the appellants should pay ad valorem court fee on the decrees whi...
Tag this Judgment!Komil Singh and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All199
Agarwala, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Budaun.2. It appears that Komil Singh was convicted Under Section 3, Public Gambling Act, III [3] of 1867, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 45/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half months. Munshi Singh, Nanneh, Pati, Mangli and Kehar Singh were convicted Under Section 4 of the same Act and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 35/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Certain moneys were recovered from their persons on search, and certain moneys were recovered from the place where they were gambling. The learned Magistrate who tried the case in the first instance and convicted the appellants, ordered the forfeiture not only of the moneys found at the place where the accused were gambling but also of the moneys which were found on their persons upon search.3. Komil Singh and others went, in revision, to the learned Sessions Judge who made a reference to this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Jagjit Singh and ors. Vs. Sankatha Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All675
1. The two questions which have been referred to the Fall Bench are as follows : (1) Whether the provisions of Order 34, Rule 7 (2) and Rule 9, Civil P. C., apply to a case in which an order allowing redemption of a mortgage has been made under Section 16, Agriculturists' Relief Act and the mortgage money has not been deposited within the time fixed by the Court, and (2) if the said provisions do not apply can the time fixed by an order under Section 16, Agriculturists' Relief Act, for payment of the redemption money be extended either on the principles underlying those provisions or under Sections 148 or 151, Civil P.C.?2. The facts which led to this reference to a Full Bench are briefly as follows: The petitioners made an application for redemption of a mortgage under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act. On 31st August 1942, Mr. R. K. Sircar, Munsif Rae Bareli, passed an order for redemption on payment of Rs. 486-6-0 within six months of the date of the order. On 27th February 194...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Inspector of Stamps Vs. Shri Gopalji Maharaj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All231
ORDERSeth, J.1. This is an application in revision by the Chief Inspector of Stamps under Section 6-B, of the amended Court-fees Act, claiming that the court-fee under Section 7(IV-A) is payable by the plaintiff on the plaint. The relevant allegations in the plaint are that. Bhatele Bishun Kumar and Bhatele Shiva Kumar became entitled to the property in suit under a decree passed on 27th August 1930, by the Civil Judge of Etawah, that on 19th May 1934, Bhatele Bishun Kumar executed a wakf deed by which he gave the property of his share to the plaintiff Shri Gopal Ji Maharaj, which is an idol; that thereafter Bhatele Bishun Kumar executed a sale-deed of the very same property in favour of Rajendra Kumar and Birendra Kumar, the first two defendants to the suit. The plaintiff further alleged that the sale-deed in favour of the first two defendants was fictitious, bogus and invalid. On these allegations the plaintiff claimed possession of the property in suit and also pendente lite and fut...
Tag this Judgment!Siddiq Ali and anr. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All119
Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal by two persons, Siddiq All and Kesho Saran who have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Sitapur at Kheri, Siddiq Ali has been convicted under Section 409, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 200 and under Section 467, Penal Code read with Section 109, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 200 Kesho Saran has been convicted for an offence under Section 467, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 200 and for an offence under Section 409, Penal Code read with Section 109, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of BS. 200. The substantive sentences of imprisonment in the case of both the appellants have been directed to run concurrently.2. During the course of his detailed and careful arguments on behalf of the two appellants, the learned counsel for the appellants too...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »