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.
Sm. Chanda Devi Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P. and Berar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All586; [1950]18ITR944(All)
Malik, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Tribunal, Allahabad Bench. The question referred to us for answer is:'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the inclusion under Section 16 (3) (a) (ii) of the Act of the three 'minors' shares of profits from the firm of Messrs. Baij Nath Madanlal in the mother's assessment is correct?' There was a partnership firm in the name of Baij Nath Madan Lal of which the partners were Madanlal and his four sons Kishan Lal being major and the other three sons, Ramesh Chandra Mahesh Chandra and Hari Mohan being minors, This partnership was registered under the Income-tax Act. Madanlal died on 3-4-1942, and a fresh partnership deed was executed on 13-4-1942, under which Sm. Chanda Devi, widow of Madanlal, and her four sons became partners each having a one fifth share. The three minor sons were still minors on the date this partnership deed was entered into and in the relevant assessment year. In that year...
Mani Lal Vs. Ganga Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All832
Agarwala, J.1. This appeal arises out of restitution proceedings under Section 144, Civil P. C. A preliminary decree for rendition of accounts & dissolution of partnership was passed in favour of Durga Prasad against two persons, Mani Lal and Shyam Sunder Lal. Mani Lal was held not liable to render accounts, while Shyam Sundar Lal was held liable to render accounts. Both Shyam Sundar Lal & Mani Lal appealed against this decree. Their appeals were dismissed. A final decree was then passed against Shyam Sundar Lal. Before the decree was passed Durga Prasad had applied for attachment of two houses belonging to Mani Lal. An order of injunction was issued against Mani Lal not to sell his share in the houses. But in spite of the order he sold his share in the houses to one Hazari Lal. The sale was, however, a fictitious sale. Against the dismissal of his appeal against the preliminary decree Shyam Sundar Lal filed a second appeal in this Court. This appeal was dismissed but not without makin...
Laljimal Girdhar Das Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1950
Reported in: [1951]19ITR418(All)
BHARGAVA, J. - In this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, the following two questions have been referred to us :-'(1) Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the issue of the notice under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act was legal (2) Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the sum Rs. 15,000 was rightly held to be the assessees income of the previous year Samvat 1994-95 taxed in the assessment year 1939-40 The assessee is a Hindu undivided family carrying on the business of dealing in cloth under the name and style of Messrs Laljimal Girdhar Das at Gorakhpur. They had business dealings with two firms, Dilsukh Rai Jai Dayal of Banares and Ganesh Narain Onkar Mal of Bombay. The accounts of the assessee, after having been assessed for the assessment year 1939-40, came up before the Income-tax Officer for purposes of assessment for the assessment year 1940-41. During these proceedings the Income-tax Officer found that a sum of Rs. 15,000 had been credited on...
Ahmad Zaki and ors. Vs. L. Shyam Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All576
ORDER1. This application arises out of an order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Unao, dismissing an application under Section 8, U. P. Debt Redemption Act, for amendment of the decree passed against the applicants on the ground that since the proceedings were taking place under the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act, the decree in question had become subjudice and could not be amended under Section 8, Debt Redemption Act. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we cannot uphold this view. Until the decree is superseded by the Special Judge Under section 14, Encumbered Estates Act, it remains a decree under which a certain amount is due from the judgment-debtor. This, however, is not the only provision of law with which we are concerned in disposing of this application.2. Section 7 (1) (b), Encumbered Estates Act provides that,'no fresh suit or other proceedings other than an appeal, review or revision against a decree or order .... shall, except as hereinafter provided, ...
Nandoo Singh Vs. Ganga Saran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All340
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of a proceeding under Section 8, U. P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940, for the amendment of a decree so as to reduce the interest under it.2. The material facts are as follows:3. Nandoo Singh appellant pays less than Rs. 250 as land revenue. He executed a deed of simple mortgage in favour of the predecessors of respondents 1 to 6 on the basis of which a final decree for sale was obtained by them. He alleges that he fell into evil ways and Khazan Singh, who was a co-applicant with him in the application under Section 8, got a fictitious simple money bond executed by him in order to save him from ruin. Subsequently, Khazan Singh obtained a decree on the foot of that bond and in its execution purchased the property which had been mortgaged to respondents 1 to 6, Later, Khazan Singh sold that property to Amin Chand who is alleged to be a relation of the appellant. Amin Chand has now executed a deed of surrender in favour of ...
Qadir Salamat Ullah Vs. Governor-general in Council and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All438
Mustaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 1513-4-0 as damages for loss of a part of the consignment sent by the plaintiff by the East Indian Railway. The consignment was made on 23-9-1913 from Unao (E. I. R.) to Mohammeda-Bad Gohna (O. T. R.). It consisted of three bales of cotton piece goods. On 2-10-1943, the consignment reached its destination, but when the plaintiff went to take delivery of the same he found two of the bales having been tampered with and some cloth pieces removed therefrom. On 7-10-1943, the plaintiff demanded 'open delivery' by a registered letter. Apparently, this was not allowed, and the demand was repeated by three other registered notices, the 1st dated 22nd October, the 2nd 15th November and the 3rd, 4th December, 1943. Eventually, after more than three months had elapsed from the arrival of the bales, the Railway Company did give an 'open delivery' to the plaintiff who made a note on the Delivery Book that there was a shor...
Mt. Buggan and ors. Vs. Abdul Karim and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All577
ORDER1. This is a reference made Under Section 319, U. P. Municipalities Act, by the District Magistrate of Rae Bareli.2. It appears that the Municipal Board of Rae Bareli granted permission to Abdul Karim and Sharfuddin for certain constructions by resolution No. 138, dated 27-1-1943. An appeal against the order was made to the District Magistrate Under Section 318 of the Municipalities Act. The appeal was decided by the predecessor of Shri Rameshwar Dayal who had made the present reference. The appeal was decided on 21-6-1946, and the permission granted by the Board was cancelled. Abdul Karim and Sharfuddin then applied on 10-8-1946, for review of the order canceling the permission. No order was passed till 25-4-1947, when the previous order of 21-6-1946, was modified. Mt. Buggan, Mt. Zahuran, Mt. Ghuran and Sankatha then applied again before the District Magistrate on 14-7-1947, for review of the order of the District Magistrate Under section 321 (2) of the Municipalities Act. There...
Manzoor Ali Usmani Vs. Mt. Lal Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All396
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. The plaintiffs-respondents are the owners of premises No. 16/35 along with the outhouses and the sheds situated at the Mall Road, Kanpur. The defendant-appellant is the tenant thereof on a monthly rent of Rs. 175. It is the common ground of the parties that these premises were let out by a written deed of lease, dated 21-11-1922. That lease was for one year with an option of renewal for another two years. On 4-12-1945, the plaintiffs instituted a suit for the ejectment of the defendant from the premises and for the recovery of Rs. 350 as arrears of rent. The defence was that the lease was for manufacturing purposes, the notice to quit was invalid and the amount claimed as arrears of rent was incorrect.2. The trial Court repelled all the contentions of the defendant and decreed the claim in its entirety. The defendant went up in appeal. Learned District Judge affirmed the decision of the trial Court. The defendant now comes up in second appeal to this Court.3. Th...
Raja Ram Chopra Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All460
ORDERKidwai, J.1. The applicant is charged under Sections 381, 411, 415 and 109, Penal Code. He was placed before Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Judicial Magistrate, who on 7-7-1950, granted a remand to the police for 14 days and sent the applicant to jail. On 11-7-1950, an application made by the applicant for bail was rejected and on the next day the police presented an application to the Judicial Magistrate concerned praying that the applicant be remanded to police custody for seven days for the purpose of pointing out stolen property and for interrogation. The learned Magistrate concerned sent for the two accused and heard them. They stated that they had nothing to point out. As a result the learned Magistrate rejected the application since their presence outside the jail did not appear to be necessary and he was of opinion that such interrogation as the police desired to make could be made in jail.2. On the same day, the police moved the Additional District Magistrate of Lucknow on the same g...
Ram Samujh and anr. Vs. Kirpa Dutt and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All408
Kidwai, J. KALI PRASAD | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Jag Dutt Chandi Dutt Kirpa Dutt Har Dutt died before | (Defendant 1) | 1928 | | = | | Gaya Dei | | (Issueless) | | --------------------------------------------------- | | | | | Ram Samujh Ram Pratap Asa Ram | (plaintiff 1) laintiff 2) (plaintiff 3.) | ---------------------------------------------- | | | Chatarpal Drigpal Rampal (Defendant 2) (Defendan3) (Defendant 4)1. After the death of Jag Dutt, a dispute arose as to properties, including a 1 anna 6 pies share in village Rajpur, left by Jag Dutt since mutation of them had been made in favour of his widow, Gaya Dei and Gaya Dei and Chandi Dutt had jointly executed a mortgage in respect of it. Kirpa Dutt and Har Dutt raised a dispute and the dispute was settled by a registered compromise dated 5-7-1928, according to which the mortgage was paid off and provision was made for the maintenance of the widow of Jag Dutt.2. The property ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »