Allahabad Court December 1951 Judgments
Chhaju Ram Ram Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1951
Reported in: [1952]21ITR251(All)
In this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act read with Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act the following two questions have been referred to this Court for answer :-'(1) Whether the inference drawn by the Tribunal that the main purpose of starting the new business in wholesale yarn under the name and style of Nanda Kishore & Co., by the newly created firm consisting of the two partners of the assessee firm and two outsiders for the avoidance or reduction of excess profits tax liability is legally correct ?(2) Whether the formation of the new firm Nanda Kishore & Co., which was separately registered under Section 26A of the Act as a firm distinct from the old firm of M/s. Chhaju Ram Ram Kumar could legally amount to a transaction within the meaning of Section 10A and the provisions of that section could be applied to it ?'The facts are that the assessee Messrs. Chhaju Ram Ram Kumar was carrying on business in yarn and the two partners, Chhaju Ram and Ram Kumar...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Ram Chandra Vs. the Dominion of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All695
P.L. Bhargava, J. 1. This is an application in revision, under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The applicant had instituted a suit, in the Court of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur, against the Dominion of India for recovery of damages resulting from the shortage and non-delivery of two bags of ginger, which were made over to the Administration of the G. I. P. Railway for transmission from Wadi Bunder to Kanpur. In the title of the suit in the plaint the applicant had described himself thus : 'Messrs. Ram Kumar Ram Chandra through Ram Kumar Adult son of Sarjoo Prasad caste Vaisb residing at Naya Ganj Kanpur, partner of the firm'. In para. 1 of the plaint the applicant had stated 'that the plaintiffs are a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and Lala Ram Kumar who has signed and verified the plaint, is registered partner of the firm.'2. On behalf of the defendant the allegation in para. 1 of the plaint was denied and the liability for payment ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalchand Mohanlal Vs. Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1951
Reported in: [1952]21ITR164(All)
The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act is as follows :-'Whether on the facts found by the Tribunal Dina Nath and Amarnath as the respective members of Ram Bharosey and Ram Sarups branches could represent and bind the other members of their Hindu undivided family under the partnership entered into by them with Har Prasad, an outsider, under the deed of partnership dated February 1, 1944 ?'It is difficult to understand how this question arose and why it was referred to us for answer.The facts were that one Kedar Nath had two sons Ram Bharosey and Ram Sarup. Each of them had three sons. Ram Bharosey and Ram Sarup were separate but were joint with their sons. The membears of the family were carrying on business in the name and style of Kedar Nath Ram Bharosey which was a registered firm of which Ram Bharosey and his sons and Ram Sarup and his sons were members. In the year 1943-44 a new business was started under th...
Tag this Judgment!L. H. Sugar Factories and Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1951
Reported in: [1952]21ITR325(All)
The assessee has a sugar factory and oil mill business. In connection with its business the assessee owns buildings some of which are used as quarters for labourers. In the assessment year in question the assessee removed the old khaprails and seventeen quarters were re-roofed with concrete while thirty-four quarters were re-roofed with new khaprails. As regards re-roofing with concrete it was admitted that this was a capital expenditure and the assessee was not entitled to claim a deduction for it out of his income. With regard to the re-roofing of thirty-four quarters with new khaprails a point was raised that this was current repairs and was not capital expenditure. The questions referred to us the Tribunal is as follows :-'whether in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred in the replacement of the old roofs by using new khaprail in place of old ones is an item of capital expenditure or revenue expenditure under Section 10 (2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act ?'Clause (xv)...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Vs. Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All498
Beg, J.1. This revision application has arisenout of proceedings under Section 7-B, Uttar Pradesh(Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act,1947.2. An application under the said section was filed by the landlord opposite party against the tenant-applicant. This application specified a certain amount as the arrears due to the landlord from the tenant. A notice of this application was issued by the Court to the tenant The tenant appeared in response to the notice and filed objections. The main objection of the tenant was that the amount shown by the landlord as arrears of rent was incorrect and the application should be dismissed on that ground. He did not deposit in Court the amount mentioned in the notice as due from him. On the failure of the tenant to deposit the said amount, the Court dismissed the objections of the tenant as not maintainable and allowed the application of the landlord under Section 7-B with costs. This revision application has been filed on behalf of the tenant c...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Vs. State Through Smt. Sagarwati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All963
Agarwala, J.1. Srimati Bari Dulaiya filed a complaint before the Panchayati Adalat of Rupadhamna alleging that Moti Lal applicant stole away a cow from her house after having sold the same to her.2. The applicant's defence was that he did not steal the cow and was not guilty of theft.3. The complainant examined two witnesses, Noni Dulaiya, an old lady living in the neighbourhood, and one Chattrasal, a person whose name appeared in the panel of Panches of Panchayati Adalat, Rupadhamna. The applicant examined one Ram Sarup and Rajpat. Rajpat admitted that a receipt was written after the cow had been sold. The receipt was scribed by one Sri Nathu Ram Yadav, one of the Panches constituting the Bench of the Panchayati Adalat trying the case. He was also examined by the Panchayati Adalat. He corroborated the statement of the complainant. The Panches including the witness Sri Nathu Ram Yadav, convicted the applicant under Section 379, I. P. C. and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 45/-. In their...
Tag this Judgment!Rudra Pratap Narian Singh Vs. BhagwandIn Misra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All511
ORDER1. These two applications are under Article 226 of the Constitution. They are connected in the sense that both of them arise out of nomination of candidates for election--in one case for the election to the State Legislative Assembly and in the other to the House of the People--and the constitutional point which arises for consideration is common. We propose to decide the two applications together. 2. The applicant in civil Misc. Appln. No. 861 of 1951, Sri Rudra Pratap Narain Singh was one of the six candidates for the Kaisarganj North constituency in the district of Bahraich. He is enrolled as a voter in another constituency known as Bahraich West and his case was governed by Sub-section 6 of Section 33, Representation of the People Act (XL II [43] of 1951) which provides that : 'If at the time of presentation of the nomination paper the Returning Officer finds that the name of the candidate is nor, registered in the electoral roll of the constituency for which he is the returni...
Tag this Judgment!Sadanand and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All515
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. The applicants were alleged to have insulted the Panches of a Panchayati Adalat while the Adalat was discharging its duties and obstructed its work. The Sarpanch of the Panchayati Adalat made a report to the Sub Divisional Magistrate who directed that the report be submitted to the Judicial Officer concerned. The case was then taken cognizance of by the Judicial Officer and he convicted the applicants under Section 228, Penal Code, in a summary trial and sentenced each of them to a fine of Rs. 50 or in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. A revision application was made to the Additional Sessions Judge who dismissed it. In this revision before me, the only point urged is that the complaint was not properly filed. It is pointed out that under G. O. No. 12353 dated 20-10-1949, it is provided that on receipt of a report from the Panchayati Adalat the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should file a complaint. It is urged that in this case the Sub-Divisional Mag...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board Vs. District Judge
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All505
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. This is an application by the Municipal Board, Allahabad, under Article 227 of the Constitution praying that the order of the Additional District Magistrate passed by him under Section 160, U.P. Municipalities Act, be set aside.2. The civil Court buildings and compounds situated at Allahabad were assessed at Rs. 6,528 and 5,520 respectively in the year 1945. The assessment was revised in the year 1950 by a Revising Officer of the Municipal Board and the assessment was enhanced, the civil Court buildings being assessed at Rs. 13,160 while the compound was assessed at Rs. 10,900.3. As the civil court buildings and compound are in charge of the District Judge of Allahabad, the District Judge filed an appeal against the order of the Revising Officer before the District Magistrate of Allahabad as provided under Section 160, Municipalities Act. The appeal was disposed of by the learned Additional District Magistrate who allowed it. He held that there was no justification ...
Tag this Judgment!Chungur Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All533
ORDERKidwai, J.1. This is an application in revision filed by Changur who ha3 been convicted under Section 60, Clause (a) of Excise Act for being in possession of two seers of contraband Nepali Ganja. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He appealed but the learned Sessions Judge of Gonda upheld the conviction and the sentence. The applicant has come up in revision. It is contended on his behalf that his conviction is bad for the following reasons: (1) that he was arrested not by an Excise Officer but by the villagers belonging to the village defence party and consequently the arrest was illegal; (2) that no report of the Chemical Examiner was produced to show that the Ganja recovered was Nepali contraband Ganja; and (3) that the prosecution was initiated by a Sub-Inspector of Police and not by an Excise Officer and consequently the applicant could not be convicted under Section 60 (a), Excise Act. 2. It appears that on the night between the 3rd and 4th S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »