Allahabad Court December 1951 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.
J.K. Cotton Manufacturers Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All488; [1952]21ITR129(All)
Malik, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act. The question referred to us is as follows :'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs. 10,000 to Mr. J.N. Cocolas is a legitimate expense?'2. The assessee Messrs J.K. Cotton Manufacturers, Kanpur was a private registered company and one Shri J.N. Cocolas was the Director in charge of the company till September, 1938. He was previously drawing a salary of Rs. 6,000 per year and later his salary was increased to Rs. 10,000 per year. He ceased to be the Director in charge in September 1938 and since then he was working merely as one of the Directors of the company. The private limited company decided to go into voluntary liquidation with effect from 30-9-1941, and the actual order of dissolution was passed by the District Judge of Kanpur on 8-12-1941. From the 1-10-1941, a new public company, which was floated, took over the business of the private limited company. The Board of Directors of this di...
Dargahi Lal Nigam Vs. Cawnpore Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All382
Malik, C.J.1. The plaintiff was an employee of the Municipal Board. He was appointed by the Municipal Board in the grade of Rs. 30-2 50 on an initial salary of Rs. 40 on 17 6-1931. On 16-6-1932, he was confirmed in his post and the duties assigned to him were to look after the cases in Courts of law on behalf of the Board. In June 1936 he was drawing a salary of Rs. 50 which salary be continued to draw till 2-9-1941, when he was suspended on certain charges. On 4-1-1943, he was acquitted of one charge and on 1-1-1943, he was discharged of the other charge. On 7-3-1943, he was remstated but the Commissioner raised certain objections and ultimately on 22-12-1943, the Board terminated his service and dismissed him. The plaintiff filed a suit on 22-12-1944, claiming that, on his reinstatement in 1943 he became entitled to get his full salary for the period during which he was under suspension i.e. from 2-9-1941 to 7-3-1943. The suit was brought against the Kanpur Municipal Board through it...
Harihar Tewari and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All489
Sapru, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The applicants, who have been convicted by a Panchayati Adalat under Sections 426, 447 and 277, Penal Code, pray that this Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings of the Panchayati Adalat and the sentence passed by it on them.3. The main grievance of the applicants is that the trial took place before a bench of which only the President Shri Sarju Prasad Misra was a member of the Gaon Sabha in the jurisdiction of which both the complainant and the accused resided. His contention is that, according to Section 49 (2), U. P. Panchayati Raj Act, two of the members should have been from the area where the complainant and the accused resided. The allegation that the bench was improperly constituted is denied by the complainants on whose behalf a counter-affidavit has been filed in this case. The objection to the illegal constitution of the bench was neither taken at any stage before the Pancha...
Parihar Singh and ors. Vs. Sita Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All940
ORDERBina Basni Prasad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' petition in revision against an order passed by the learned Assistant Collector of Gyanpur in the district of Banaras staying a suit for ejectment which the plaintiffs brought against the defendants on 23-9-1949. From the relief contained in the plaint it appears that the suit purported to be under Section 34/58, Agra Tenancy Act, as applied to the erstwhile Banaras State.2. The plaintiffs' case was that they were the tenants-in-chief of the plots in dispute, that they made a usufructuary mortgage of them to one Chunni Lal, that they had got the mortgage redeemed, that the defendants were sublet those plots by the mortgagee and that after the redemption, they became the sub-tenants of the plaintiffs, but they were denying the plaintiffs' rights. In para 3 of the plaint it was alleged that the plaintiffs did not want the defendants to continue as sub-tenants any further. Hence they prayed for their ejectment.3. On 30-9-1950, learned Ass...
Musai Bhant and ors. Vs. Ganga Charan and State U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All118
Sapru, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, direction, or order as it may please and quash the conviction and sentence passed against the applicants by a Panchayati Adalat. The applicants' allegation is that none of the five panchas who convicted him resided in the village of the accused or the area of the Gaon Sabha. This fact is not controverted by the opposite parties as they have not filed any counter-affidavit. We further find that this objection was taken, though not in very clear terms, before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to whom the applicants went in revision. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate chose to pass an order which gave no reasons for rejecting the applicants' application. We think it was incumbent on him to pass a more well-considered order. For the successful working of the Panchayat Raj Act and for guiding the Panchayati Adalats it is, in...
Bhagwati Chaube Vs. Ram Adhar Chaube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All219
Mootham, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's first appeal from an order of the learned Civil Judge of Gorakhpur. 2. The plaintiff had filed a suit on the 19-12-1946, in the court of a Munsif for a declaration that he was entitled to exclusive possession of certain plots of land or alternatively for possession of those plots, it is unnecessary to state the circumstances which led up to the filing of this suit, for, it is not in dispute that at the time the suit was filed, it was property filed in the court of the munsif, it is also common ground that had the suit been filed after 14-6-1947 the date upon which the U. P. Tenancy Amendment Act (Act 10 of 1947) came into force the suit would have had to be filed in a revenue court. The suit, as I have said, was filed in December 1946. It was decided by the learned Munsif on 5-2-1948. The plaintiff appealed from the decision of the Munsif to the court of the District Judge and cross-objections were filed by the defendants who are the present opposit...
Jiwa Ram Vs. Panchaiti Adalat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All510
Agarwala, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying that the order of the Panchayati Adalat of Gursena, dated 27-5-1950, sentencing the applicant under Sections 323 and 356, Penal Code to a fine of Rs. 5 on each court be quashed. 2. The facts mentioned in the affidavit of the applicant have not been controverted by the other side. Chhatar Singh, opposite party 2, filed a complaint against the applicant and three othersin the Panchayati Adalat, Gursena, under Sections 328 and 356, Penal Code. The Panchayati Adalat consisted of five members. These five members issued summons against the applicant. Later on, in pursuance of an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in place of one of the panches belonging to village Gursena, another panch was substituted. The case was heard by five panches, but the judgment was delivered by three members only. One of the questions raised in the case is that the bench which decided the case consisting, as it did, o...
Sheo Balak Vs. Sarabjit Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All516
Kidwai, J.1. On 5-1-1917, Lal Bahadur, Sant Bux Singh, Bhagwan Bax Singh and Gajadhar Singh, mortgaged some property to Hardat Singh to secure a loan of Rs. 1,800 which they took from him. Out of this sum Rs. 1000 was to be paid to Lal Bahadur and the other three mortgagors were to get Rs. 800.2. The money payable to Lal Bahadur was not paid to him bat it was utilised by the otherthree mortgagors. Lal Bahadur pressed for payment but, since his co-mortgagors could not pay it in cash, they on 6-1-1917, executed a mortgage leed in Lal Bahadur's favour by which they hypothecated 41 bighas 11 biswas 15 biswansis of land belonging to them and delivered possession 60 the mortgagee.3. On 11-1-1945, Sarabjit Singh, Hansraj Kaer and Janak Kaj Kuer, the successors of Sant Bux Singh, Bhagwan Bux Singh and Gajadhar Singh, applied under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, against Sona Kunwar, Nanda Sheo Balak and Lotawan, the successors-in-interest of Lal Bahadur for redemption of the mort...
Pambhi Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All526
Misra, J. 1. This is a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution and alternatively under Section 561A, Criminal P. 0. against an order of the Panchayti Adalat, Kunda, district Partabgarh. The applicant Pambhi has been convicted of offences under Sections 323 and 504, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Es. 35 in respect of the first charge and Rs. 20 in respect of the second, it being provided that if the fine was realized, Rs. 15 thereof would be given to the complainant as compensation. Pambhi's revision under Section 85, Panchayat Raj Act to the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kunda, failed and he now invokes the aid of this Court under the provisions referred to above. 2. Section 85, Panchayat Raj Act, confers the power of revision on Sub-Divisional Magistrates and Munsifs over the orders or decrees of the Panchayati Adalat and provides that decrees or orders passed by the Panchayati Adalat in any suit case or proceeding under the Act 'shall be final and shall no...
Shiv Dutt and anr. Vs. Ghasita and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All499
P.L. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs appeal It arises out of a suit for possession of land and recovery of arrears of rent for a period of six years. The facts are these : On 25-2-1891, a registered 'quabuliat' was executed by the predecessor-in-interest of Phonda, defendant 1, in favour of the plaintiffs' predeeessor-in-title & under this 'qabuliat' payment of rent at Rs. 3/- per annum was agreed upon. Defendants 2 to 4 are the sub-tenants of the land on behalf of Phonda. Under the terms of the 'qabuliat Phonda was entitled to make 'khain' constructions on the land and the value of the contructions was not to exceed Rs. 50/-. It was also provided in the 'qabuliat' that, if at any time the owner of the land desired to obtain back possession over the land, Phonda, would receive Rs. 50/- for the constructions made by him. Phonda took possession of the land and made certain constructions thereon. On 2-5-1945, Phonda executed a sale deed transferring the house, which he had constructe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »