Allahabad Court July 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.
Shiva Dayal Jaiswal Vs. Sales-tax Commissioner
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All858
Sapru, J.1. This is an application Under section 11, Sales- Tax Act With a prayer that the Revising authority be directed to state a case and refer certain questions of law to this Court. The facts which have given rise to it may be stated shortly.2. The applicant is a business man. He obtained a licence for running a country liquor shop, a drug shop and an opium shop. He had to pay very largo licence fees for the said shops. In addition to them, the licensee had to pay an excise duty on the liquor obtained by him from the State Government.3. On 1-4-1948 the Uttar Pradesh Legislature passed the Sales-Tax Act. In accordance with the provisions of that Act, on 9-12-1948 the Sales-Tax Officer made an assessment on the applicant of the sales-tax from two quarters of the years 1948-49. On that being done, objection was raised by the applicant to the effect that the Sales Tax Act had no application to him. In other words, his contention was that he could not be made to pay the sales tax in a...
Madan Gopal Vs. Ramesh Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All81
C.B. Agarwala, J 1. This is a deft's. appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The property in dispute is situated in Kashipur, district Nainital. The Agra Pre-emption Act does not apply to this area. The claim for pre-emption was based on custom.2. On behalf of the deft-appellant it has been urged that by virtue of Section 336, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act (No. 1 of 1951) this appeal must be allowed and the suit dismissed. Section 336 of the Act reads as follows:'(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, custom, usage or agreement, the right of preemption shall not exist in respect of any sale of any immoveable property in the area to which the Act applies whether made voluntarily or under order of Court. (2) All suits for pre-emption pending in respect of any such property in any Court whether of the first instance or appeal or revision shall stand dismissed, but award of the costs incurred in any such suit shall be in the discretion of the Court...
In Re: Hotchand Sunderdas Batria
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All856
Sapru, J.1. Sarvasri Hotchand Sunderdas, Sadhuram Chetumal Shivnani, Rupchandra C. Hingorani and Deoo Chandumal were advocates of the Sind Chief Court. On account of the conditions created by the partition, they had to leave Sind and they desire to practise as advocates of this Court. Applications were made by them for enrolment as advocates and, in the usual course, these applications were dealt with by the Bar Council. The Bar Council has raised an objection to their enrolment as advocates to the effect that they do not satisfy all the requirements which are needed in the case of a person desiring to be enrolled as an advocate of this Court, more specially the Bar Council's case is that, inasmuch as they do not possess a degree in Articles, Science or Commerce of any University established by law in India, they are not eligible for enrolment as advocates of this court. The question, therefore, for consideration is whether the objection raised by the Bar Council has any force.2. The q...
Ram Manohar Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All90
Sapru, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari & send for the appeal which has been disposed of by the Board of Revenue to its own file. 2. The grievance of the applicant is that the appeal which was filed against him before the Board of Revenue was heard by one of the Members. The other Member later signed the order of the Member who heard the appeal & assented to the order passed by him. It is urged that this procedure was highly irregular & opposed to the principles of natural justice. 3. There is, in our opinion, no force in this argument because, apart from the fact that the rules of the Board authorise a single Member to act in the name of the Board, under serial No. 5 of List 2, U. P. Tenancy Act, two members of the Board are not required to sit together in the exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under the Act. Rule 170 of the Revenue Court Manualpublished by the...
Mst. Govindi Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All88
C.B. Agarwala, J. 1. This is one out of numerous writ applications filed in this Court questioning the validity of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, No. 1 of 1951, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' or 'the impugned Act'. The validity of the Act has been upheld in a recent decision of a Full Bench of this Court, vide 'Suryapal Singh v. Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, 1951 A. L. J. 365. 2. Sri Prem Mohan Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, however, urges that there are several points that arise in the case which were not argued before the Pull Bench and hence were not dealt with by that Bench, He contends that the Act is invalid for several reasons. 3. The first ground argued is that apart from the provisions of Article 31(4), the State Legislature was incompetent to legislate with regard to the acquisition of the property of the intermediaries on condition of payment of compensation by means of bonds. It is urged that the condition of payment of comp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›