Allahabad Court September 1950 Judgments
Triloki Nath, Manager and Karta of Triloki Nath Shri Nath Vs. Governor ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All489
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 23, Small Cause Courts Act, filed by the plaintiff whose claim has been dismissed by the Court below.2. A consignment of nine bags of tobacco weighing 12 maunds and 4 seers was dispatched from Farrukhabad to Belanganj (Agra) under Risk Note Form A. On arrival at the destination when delivery of the consignment was made it was found that eight out of the nine bags which constituted the consignment were intact but one bag was found cut and resewn. On being reweighed the bag which was found cut was found short in weight by 29 seers. On these facts the consignee, who is the plaintiff, sued the opposite party for damages.3. The claim was contested by the opposite party on the ground that the bags in which the consignment was despatched were old and repaired and sewing was defective and that consequently loss occurred. But the opposite party was protected from all responsibility by the Risk Note Form A under which the goods we...
Tag this Judgment!Hamid HussaIn Khan Vs. Masood HussaIn Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All279
Mushtaq Ahmad, J. 1. This is an appeal against what I regard as an eminently just and proper order. The order is one directing the appellant, Mutwalli of a waqf created by his father, to (1) deposit in Court moneys due to the beneficiaries, such as not already paid to them, (s) submit monthly accounts of income and expenditure from certain date and deposit in Court sums realized by the appellant from that date at the end of every month, (3) intimate every month if the appellant has let out any plots or land in the abadi to other persons and (4) desist from cutting or removing any trees, all this only until the disposal of an application of the plaintiff for the appointment of a receiver.2. One Nawab Ashiq Hussain made a waqf of a very substantial property in 1923 appointing his eldest son the appellant, as the next Mutwalli after his own death, but at the same time, reserving to himself the power of changing the mode of devolution of the tualiat during the rest of his life time. In 193...
Tag this Judgment!H. Bevis and Co. Vs. Ram Behari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All8
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against an order refusing an injunction.2. The plaintiff is a firm dealing in tents and brushes, etc., for which it has to employ a large body of workmen and labourers. The defendants are the representatives of those workers in the employ of the plaintiff concern. There was a dispute between the parties with regard to the defendants' right to receive from the plaintiff certain sums, and the U. P. Governor, on 25-2-1947, referred the same under Rule 81, Defence of India Rules for adjudication to a particular officer of the Government. This officer made an award on 16-5-1947, that the plaintiff firm should pay roughly Rs. 40,000 as bonus to the workers in its employ. The plaintiff objected to this award and filed a Suit No. 73 of 1947 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Kanpur to obtain its cancellation. In this suit, the plaintiff made an application praying for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the amount und...
Tag this Judgment!Dhaukal Mal Dwarka Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Luckno ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1950
Reported in: [1951]19ITR212(All)
This reference under Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act read with Section 66(10) of the Income-tax Act raised three question of law. The first two question are as follows :-(1) Whether the formation of the new partnership is a transaction within the meaning of Section 10A of the Excess Profits Tax Act ?(2) Whether the fact of the registration of the firm under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act is a bar to the addition of its income to the income of a firm which is subject to excess profits tax proceedings by the Excess Profits Tax Officer in exercise of his powers of adjustment under Section 10A (2) of the Excess Profits Tax Act for the purpose of determining the excess profits tax ?The answers to the first two questions are covered by our decision in Sohan Pathak and Sons, Banaras v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. and Ajmer-Merwara, Lucknow. The facts briefly stated are that there was a Hindu undivided family carrying on extensive business in Jaunpur under the name and style o...
Tag this Judgment!Abbas Ali Vs. Mt. Rabia Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All145
V. Bhargava, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for dissolution of marriage brought by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant.2. The respondent, Smt. Rabia Bibi who is the wife of Abbas Ali appellant, brought this suit claiming divorce on grounds of cruelty and the false charge of adultery brought against her by the appellant. The lower appellate Court has held that the respondent failed to prove physical ill treatment. The Court further held that though the appellant had brought a charge of adultery against the respondent, it had been withdrawn unconditionally by the appellant and, therefore, it could also be no ground for granting a decree for divorce. The lower appellate Court, however, held in favour of the respondent that legal cruelty was established. The finding of the lower Court is that the conduct of the husband had made the life of the wife miserable even though this conduct did not amount to physical ill-treatment and it has, on this ground uphe...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Har Prasad Singh Vs. Beni Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All79
P.L. Bhargava, J.1. The question, which has been referred to the Full Bench, is as follows:'Whether a memorandum of appeal, which is found to be defective for want of proper court-fee and is, therefore, not admitted in view of Section 4, Court-fees Act, and it is ultimately rejected on that ground, can be treated as an appeal when the Court has refused to admit or register it as an appeal.'2. The facts relevant to the question under consideration are these : On 19-3-1937, Shri Hari Har Prasad Singh, the decree-holder-appellant, obtained a money decree for Rs. 9,440 together with costs and future interest against Seth Beni Chand, who is the respondent in this appeal, from the Court of the Civil Judge of Banda. The judgment-debtor presented to this Court a memorandum of appeal against the said decree. The memorandum of appeal was insufficiently stamped, a court-fee of Rs. 10 only was paid, although a much larger amount of court-fee was payable. The deficiency in court-fee was not made go...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Naim Mohd. Alam Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All143; [1951]19ITR58(All)
Malik C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act. The following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion:'1. Whether by issue of a notice for hearing, of an appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax is debarred from subsequently holding that the appeal is time-barred under Section 30(2), Income-tax Act? 2. Whither the refusal of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax to admit an appeal on the ground that it is time-barred is an order under Section 31, Income-tax Act and appealable to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 33, Income-tax Act?' From the facts set out below, it would appear that the second question does not really arise and, therefore, does not call for an answer.2. The notice of demand was served on the assessee on 10-1-1947. The assessee filed an application for a copy of the order of assessment. On 29-8-1947, he sent a reminder by registered post that he had not received the copy of the order till then. No re...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwati DIn Vs. Ram Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All478
Agarwala, J.1. This is a decree holder's appeal and the only point for consideration is whether an execution application made by the appellant in the lower Court was barred by limitation. The facts briefly are as follows. The appellant Bhagwati Din obtained a decree against two persons Ram Prasad and Mt. Badami on 6-11-1933. Thereafter Ram Prasad applied for instalments and for the reduction of interest under the Agriculturists' Belief Act and the interest was reduced and instalments granted, the last instalment being payable on 4-7-1940. 2. One Nand Kumar had a decree against Bhagwati Din appellant. On 16 12 1941 Nand Kumar applied for execution of his decree by attachment of the decree in favour of Bhagwati Dm. Notices were sent to Bhagwati Din and to the judgment-debtors, Ram Prasad and Mt. Badami but it is not clear whether the decree in favour of Bhagwati Din was in fact attached. But we will assume that it was attached. The application of Nand Kumar was, however, ultimately dismi...
Tag this Judgment!S. Wajid Ali Vs. Mt. Isar Bano Urf Isar Fatma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All64
Agarwala, J.1. The memorandum of appeal in the above ease was presented before a Bench of this Court on 24-2-1950 with a stamp report that the appeal was within time till 25-2-1950 and that there was a deficiency in the court-fee paid to the extent of Rs. 295/14/-. The amount of court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal was Rs. 19/12/- only. Mr. Jagdish Sahai, counsel for the appellant, who filed the appeal, requested the Bench to grant one month's time for making good the deficiency. As the Bench considered that the question whether time could be granted for making good the deficiency in the court-fee extending beyond the period of limitation as a matter of course or under certain circumstances only, was a question of sufficient importance to merit consideration by a larger Bench, they referred the following four questions to this Bench :'1. Whether Section 4, Court-fees Act, is subject to, or controlled by, the provision of, and principles underlying, Section 6(2) of that Act ?2. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Kirpa Ram and ors. Vs. Ram Asrey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All414
ORDERKidwai, J.1. Kirpa Ram, Siaram, Ram Harsh and Bijai Bahadur were prosecuted on the complaint of Ram Asrey under Sections 379, 447 and 352/506, Penal Code, on the allegation that they had entered a grove situated in Ajitpur on 29-4-1949 and cut mangoes worth about Rs. 35/- from the grove. The case was tried and disposed of by Shri Kamta Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Kaisarganj at Bahraich. He convicted all the accused persons under Section 379, Penal Code, and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- each. They applied in revision and the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bahraich had accepted their contention that the learned Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the case and has referred the case to this Court for quashing the order of conviction and directing the case to be transferred to the Judicial Panchayat concerned for disposal. The learned Judicial Magistrate has submitted an explanation in which he seeks to show that his jurisdiction was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »