Allahabad Court January 1950 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.
Lalit Ram Mangilal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All390; [1950]18ITR286(All)
Malik, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions for opinion :(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case the profits from the sale of three gold bars said on 27th April 1943, arose from an 'adventure in the nature of the trade' within the meaning of S. 2(4), Income-tax Act, and was liable to income-tax ?(2) Whether the profits arising from the transaction of the sale of gold bars made on 27th April 1943, could be taxed before the entire profits from the sale of the gold bars were determinable ?'2. The assessee Messrs. Lalitram Mangi Lal, Proprietor Budhoo Lal of Kanpur, status, individual carries on business in cloth in Kanpur. In the account year ending June 1943, assessment year 1944-45, he had on 29th October 1942, purchased one gold bar at Rs. 61-8-0 per tola, two gold bars on 30th October 1912, at Rs. 61-11-0 per tola and five gold bars on 6th November 1942. at Rs. 61-9-0 per tola. Three bars, out of those purchased, were sold by the asses...
Oudh NaraIn Lal and ors. Vs. Mt. Sukh Dulari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All402
Mootham, J.1. The question which has been referred to this bench foe decision arises in the following circumstances.2. The petitioners are the universal legatees under the alleged will of one Lala Bans Gopal who died at Lachhanpur in district Jaunpur on 9th October 1939 ; and they have applied in this Court for grant of letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed. The petition is opposed by the respondents who contend that the alleged will is a forgery.3. In the year 1943 the present petitioners filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Jaunpur for a declaration that they were entitled to possession of certain property which they said had been bequeathed to them by the said Lala Bans Gopal under the will which is the subject of the present petition, and in that suit the present respondents were the defendants. The defence was that the will was a forgery, and the Munsif held it to be so and dismissed the suit. An appeal to the Civil Judge of Jaunpur and a second appeal to...
Kailash Pat Vs. Goswami Brij Gopal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All405
Mushtak Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for cancellation of a lease dated 8th May 1911, granted by one Lalta Prasad to the defendant-appellant. There was also a relief for possession.2. The lease covered two plots, forming part of Khewat No. 26/1 of mahal Kalan Bangar in Bindraban, district Mathura, and it was for building purposes. Rs. 1,000 were paid under the lease as premium, and an annual rent of Rs. 10 was made payable by the lessee.3. The plaintiff, a co-sharer in the plots, brought the suit for cancellation of the lease on the ground that Lalta Prasad, another co-sharer, had no right to grant it without the consent or authority of the remaining co-sharers. It is admitted that there are about seventy co-sharers, out of whom twenty-nine appear to have attested the deed of lease. It was the defendant's case that twenty, one out of the remaining co-sharers had received portions of the amount of the premium paid by the lessee.4. The plaintiff had brought the suit ...
Manohar Lal Gokul Prasad Vs. Governor-general of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All648
Misra, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of the Rs. 1100 in respect of a loss of a consignment of dal sent by one of the partners of the plff. firm, Messrs Manohar Lal Gokul Prasad, from Bhagalpur Katchery to Lucknow, on 4-8-1942. Bhagalpur Katchery was a station on the B. N. W. Railway which is now a part of the Oudh & Tirhut Eailway. The plff firm wrote several letters to the Railway administration, & gave legal notices of the loss in compliance with Section 77, Railways Act & Section 80, Civ. P. C. They eventually filed this suit for 'recovery of Rs. 901/8/ price of the dal, & Rs. 198/8 damages for non-delivery of the goods.2. It would appear that in view of the paucity of wagons the consignment of dal had to be despatched from Bhagalpur Katahery station to Bhagalpur junction on 11-8-1942, for being reloaded there for Lucknow. Bhigalpur junction is the terminus of a branch line, the starting point of which is Thana Bihpur on the direct route from Samastipur to Kathi...
Pearey Lal Vs. Bhamandal Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All433
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit on the foot of three hypothecation bonds for the recovery of Rs. 7,911-14-0. The first bond was executed on 14th September 1931 for a sum of Rs. 700/-. The second is dated 22nd December 1932 for Rs. 2,250/-. The third is dated 13th April 1939 for Rs. 800/-. The same property is hypothecated in all the three mortgages. Pearey Lal and Mt. Bhawani alias Mt. Gobindi are the common mortgagors of these three transactions and Lala Bhamandal Das was the common mortgagee.2. The suit was resisted on a number of grounds and no less than eight issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge. In the present appeal, however, we are concerned with only one issue, namely, whether the defendant is an agriculturist within the meaning of the term as defined in the U. P. Agricultures' Relief Act. The learned Civil Judge has held that the defendant-appellant is not an agriculturist and so he is not entitled to the benefits of the Act....
Arjun Singh Vs. Sahu Maharaj Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All415
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against an order passed by the Court below by which his objections were dismissed.2. It appears that in pursuance of a contract for sale of a house known as Esse Lodge in Mussoorie, the decree-holder respondent obtained a decree for specific performance of the contract of sale. On appeal, this decree was affirmed by the High Court. The appellant failed to obey the decree although he had an opportunity of doing so. The decree-holder wag thus compelled to apply to the Court under Order 21, Rule 32, Civil P. C., for executing the sale-deed in pursuance of the decree. The sale-deed was executed by the Court in favour of the decree-holder. It appears that the decree-holder failed to secure delivery of possession of the house in question. He then applied to the execution Court for delivery of possession of the house. The appellant then resisted the application and objected to delivery of possession on the ground that the decree was on...
Pokhan Singh and anr. Vs. Radhey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1953All240
V. Bhargava, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Judge of Mainpuri directing the appellants to file court-fee to the extent of Rs. 150 in order to make up the deficiency on their memorandum of appeal, filed before the District Judge against the decision of the Civil Judge of Mainpuri in proceedings on an application under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act. The Inspector of Stamps and Registration, on examination of this memorandum of appeal, held the view that the court-fee was payable on the principal amount secured by the original mortagage as provided in Section 7(ix), Court-fees Act. In the present case, the principal sum secured was Rs. 4,000. The learned District Judge accepted this report of the Inspector of Stamps and directed the present appellants to make up the deficiency in court-fee. The appellants in this appeal contend that the court-fee was not payable on the principal amount secured by the original mortgage but 'ad valorem' on th...
Ganga DIn Vs. Gokul Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All407
Agarwala, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Munsif North, Faizabad, decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit, which was brought under Section 9, Specific Relief Act.2. The plaintiff-respondent alleged in the plaint that he was in possession of the plots mentioned at the foot of the plaint and had prepared them for cultivation when the defendant forcibly dispossessed him. In para. 6 of the plaint he mentioned that the land was tenancy land and that, therefore, he was paying court-fed on that basis. He did not mention that he was the tenant of the land or that he had any other title to it. The defence was that the defendant was the tenant of the plots in suit and that the civil Court bad no 'jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it was cognisable by the revenue Court alone under the provisions of Section 242 read with Section 180 or Section 183, U. P. Tenancy Act. The defendant further denied that he had dispossessed the plaintiff as alleged by him. The lea...
Fateh Singh Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Bagla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1957All250
Agarwala, J. 1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor against an order in execution proceedings refusing to set aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, The facts briefly stated are as follows. 2. There was a decree against the appellant as also respondents Nos. 17, 18 and 19--respondents Nos. 18 and 19 being minors--in favour ofseveral decree-holders, some of whom were minors for a sum of Rs. 1,61,000. In execution of the decree certain immovable property belonging to the judgment-debtors was put up for sale on the 19th October, 1949, and was sold to Rameshwar Prasad Bagla, respondent No. 1, for a sum of Rs. 2,81,000. The execution application had been made by some of the decree-holders, viz., by plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 7--plaintiffs Nos. 6 and 7 being minors. There were several other decree-holders including some minors who had not joined in the execution application, and therefore the application had been made for the benefit of all the decree-holders. Afte...
Raja Ram Vs. B. Hashmatullah and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All410
Agarwala, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against an order of the Civil Judge of Moradabad ordering the plaintiff to make good the deficiency on the plaint within the time fixed by it.2. The plaintiff's case in the plaint was that Hashmatullah, defendant 1, was originally the sole proprietor of a running concern styled Hashmatullah & Co. In September 1943 Hashmatullah agreed to take in the plaintiff as a financing partner. The plaintiff desired that defendant 2 Kaushalaya Nandan should also be taken as a partner. Hashmatullah was not agreeable to this suggestion. Subsequently, however, it was agreed that Hishmatullah was to be a partner of one half, while the plaintiff and Kaushalaya Nandan were to be partners in the other half in equal shares. This arrangement was recorded in an agreement dated 29th February 1944 which was executed by Hashmatullah and Kaushalaya Nandan only, Kaushalaya Nandan standing as a benamidar for the plaintiff to the extent of a half share. The partnership wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›