Allahabad Court September 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shamsher Jang Bahadur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All461; [1951]20ITR31(All)
Malik, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 66 (3), Income-tax Act. An order of assessment was passed against the assessee by the Income-tax Officer of Moradabad, on 15-3-1945. An appeal against that order was filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who decided it on 28-11-1945. An appeal under Section 33, Income-tax Act, was filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.2. The appeal involved consideration of several items about which the assessee had raised objections. The Tribunal dealt with each item separately. As regards the first item of Rs. 12,046 it held that the income from grazing fees was exempt from income-tax. As regards the next item of Rs. 403 the Tribunal said that this should be excluded and observed: 'This income will, therefore, be deleted from the assessment.' The Tribunal took up next the item of Rs. 2,173, which was interest on arrears of rent. It was of the opinion that this should not have been included in the assessment and sa...
B. Gulzar Singh and anr. Vs. Mt. Janki Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All308
Mushtaq Ahmad, J. 1. These are plaintiffs' appeals, each arising out of a particular appeal in the lower appellate Court and in the same suit by the same plaintiffs. 2. The suit was for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over certain sir plots. There was also a prayer for possession in the alternative. The original sir holders were one Ranjit Singh and one Sarju Prasad. The plaintiffs are the successors in interest of the former and the defendant is the successor-in-interest of the latter. In 1889, Ranjit Singh, predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs, filed a suit against the other co-sharer, Sarju Prasad, for possession over the plots held by the latter. That suit was compromised on 29-11-1890. Therein it was settled that each party would remain in possession of the plots in his exclusive occupation and that he would be entitled to have a formal partition of the patti, meaning mahal, according to their respective possessio...
Amar Singh Vs. Hoshiar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All141
Mushtaq Ahmad, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for ejectment and for Rs. 36 as arrears of rent for the period from 5.7.1945 to 5.1.1947 in respect of a house. The house originally belonged to the defendant, who, on 14-10-1941, sold it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case was that, having purchased the house from the defendant, he had let it out to the latter under a rent note dated 7-6-1942 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2 for a period of nine months. It may be mentioned here that no date as the date of commencement of the lease was mentioned in this document, and one of the questions to be considered is on what date would the tenancy be deemed to have commenced, that is, whether on the date of the execution of the rent note, namely, 7-6-1942, or on the following date The plaintiff's case was that the tenancy had commenced on 7.6.1942, while, according to the defendant, it had commenced on the following date.2. Prior to the suit giving rise to this appeal another suit had been...
Mahabir Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All271; [1951]20ITR472(All)
Malik, C.J. 1. The question referred to us under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act runs as follows :'1. (a) Whether an order passed by an Appellate Assistant Commissioner refusing to admit an appeal by holding that it was not presented within time is an order under Section 30, Clause (2), Income-tax Act, or under Section 31 of the Act ? (b) Whether an appeal is competent to the Tribunal from such order ?' 2. This reference came up for hearing before us to day and an application was moved under Section 66 (4) of the Act on behalf of the assessee that as certain other questions arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, they should have also been referred to us.3. Mr. Das on behalf of the Department has opposed the application on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Section 66 (2), Income-tax Act provides that if, on any application being made under Sub-section (1), the Appellate Tribunal refuses to state the case on the ground that no question of law arises, the as...
Gurucharan Prasad Jagannath Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All556; [1951]19ITR42(All)
V. Bhargava, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, in which the following questions have been referred to us for opinion:'(1) Whether in view of the previous history of the assessment of the firm and the manner of their keeping accounts and their past conduct, the properties allotted to the applicant under the composition schema approved by the High Court in 1923 were part of the stock-in-trade of the assessee's money-lending business or were a part of the capital stock?(2) Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the alleged loss of Rs. 1,13,170/- claimed by the assessee constitutes a bad debt of the assessee's money-lending business ?(3) Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the sum claimed by the assessee in respect of loans made by him became irrecoverable in terms of Section 10 (2) (vi) (xi ?), Income-tax Act, in the course of the accounting year or in 1923 when the composition scheme was enforced ?'2. The assessee had advanced a loan of one lac o...
L.D. Meston School Society Vs. Kashi Nath Misra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All558
1. These two connected appeals arise out of two orders of injunction passed in a suit brought by the respondent Shri Kashi Nath Misra against the appellant L.D. Meston School Society, Ballia, for a declaration that a resolution passed by the appellant society on 21-6-1950 was 'illegal, ultra vires and ineffective' and that Pt. Sita Ram Chaturvedi, Principal, of a college which is managed by the appellant society could not be asked to make over a charge of his office. The facts briefly stated are as follows :2. There is a college known as Satish Chandra College at Ballia. The appellant is a society which manages the college. The society is managed by a managing committee consisting of 21 members, of whom six are life members, the collector and the principal are ex officio members and 13 are elected members. Pt. Sita Ram Chaturvedi was appointed as Principal of the college by the managing committee on probation for one year, and he took over charge on 8-7-1948. By another resolution In 1...
Gopalji Maharaj Vs. Shiam Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All125
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for possession over a shop & some land adjoining the shop & also for recovery of Rs. 962 as arrears of rent trill the date of institution of the salt. A permanent Lease of the said shop and land was granted by the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff to the defendant on 23-5-1927, at an annual rent of Rs. 150 payable half yearly. The lease provided that, in default of payment of three successive instalments, the lessee would be entitled to re enter upon the property. Admittedly, rent was paid till 31-12-1937, after which the defendant made no payments at all. The suit giving rise to the appeal was filed on 31-5-1944, for the reliefs I have already mentioned.2. In defence, it was pleaded that the defendant had been dispossessed by the plaintiff in 1937 from a major portion of the adjoining land & that therefore, under what is known as the rule of suspension of payment of rent, the defendant was not liable to pay anything at all...
Raghunath and ors. Vs. the Municipal Board and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All465
Agarwala, J. 1. These are three connected appeals and all arise out of Suit No. 31 of 1942 brought by Jharey Ram, father of appellants, against six defendants Municipal Board Mathura, defendant 1, Government of the United Provinces, defendant 2, Brindaban, defendant 3, Hira Lal, son of Brindaban, defendant 4, Mangi Lal, defendant 5 and Dr. (Capt.) Suri, defendant 6. The facts briefly stated are these :2. In the year 1915, the Municipal Board of Mathura resolved that it would lay out a part to be called the Dampier Park for the use of the public. The Municipal Board requested the Government to acquire land for them for this purpose. Certain land was, therefore, acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. The land in dispute belonging to Jharey Ram, plaintiff, formed part of the land acquired. The Municipal Board thereafter levelled the land and planted some trees but later on gave up the idea of laying out the park or using the land for that purpose. As the Municipal Boar...
Nazir Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All3
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. In view of the divergence of opinion between this Court on the one hand and the High Courts of Calcutta, Lahore and Patna and the Chief Court of Sind on the other in regard to the interpretation of Sections 59 and 46, Criminal P. C., the following question has been referred by a Division Bench for decision :'Whether in view of the facts found by us above, Lallu Singh, Bahadur Singh, Thakuri, Sireshtey, Chhotey Lal and Behari had the right to attempt to arrest the appellants and their companions and whether the appellants and their companions had the right to shoot them in their self-defence?'2. The facts found by the Division Bench are that on the night between the 29th and 30th of March 1949, an armed dacoity took place in the house of one Debi Prasad in village Basta in the District of Farrukhabad. There were about 15 or 20 dacoits and some of them were armed with guns and pistols. Kanhaiya Lal, one of the neighbours of Debi Prasad, saw the commission of this ...
Hari Charan Halwasiya and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All442
ORDERChandiramani, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order of Shri T. Prasad, Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, dated 22-5-1950.2. It appears that the three applicants, H. C. Halwasiya, D. P. Halwasiya and B. P. Halwasiya, were convicted by the City Magistrate of Lucknow under Section 8, U. P. (Temporary) Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1947. It is said that the applicants were tenants of a house in Mohalla Narhai, Lucknow, which they had reserved for the purposes of their staff from whom they never charged any rent and whom they allowed to occupy the premises as long as they were in the service of the applicants. It is said that one Mr. Roy used to live in that house in Narhai as employee of the applicants, that when he left, the premises were given to another employee, Bhatacharya but without the orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and thereby a breach had been made of the order of the District Magistrate dated 8-3-1949. The defence was that the applica...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »