Allahabad Court October 1952 Judgments
Gandamal Gopi Nath Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, United Provinces, Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All447
Malik, C.J. 1. The following question has been referred to this Court under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act: 'Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, assessment proceedings started by the issue of the notice under Section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act on 9-4-45 which was served on 11-4-45 calling for a return of Income within 35 days and assessment completed on the basis of a return filed on 11-6-45 in pursuance to that notice was rendered invalid and illegal in law because a general notice under Section 22(1) of the Act had been issued at the end of April 1945 which allowed time for the filing of the similar return within 65 days of its issue?'2. The question can be answered only in one way. The facts appearing from the 'Statement of the Case' and the appellate Order are that on 9-4-1945, the Income-tax Officer had issued a notice under Section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act giving the assessee 35 days' time for filing his return from the date of the service of the noti...
Tag this Judgment!Qazi MuniruddIn and ors. Vs. the Chairman, Town Area Committee, Mau Ai ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All109
Malik, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The case of the applicants is that, as the Ganjia Bazar is held on land belonging to them, the officer in charge of the Town Area, Allahabad, had no right under the Town Areas Act to realise the Teh-Bazari dues from the shopkeepers keeping stalls on the land belonging to the applicants. Learned counsel has urged that the orders of the officer in-charge of the Town Areas dated 14th October 1952, and 27th October 1952, are clear invasion of their right to property.2. The applicants, however, have a remedy by way of a suit and they can in that suit file an application for injunction and pray for the reliefs that they have asked for in this application.The only reason given for not proceeding in theordinary course by way of a suit but by moving this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is:'That irreparable loss shall occur to the petitioners and they have no other alternative remedy equally convenient and e...
Tag this Judgment!Kameshwara Singh Vs. Bharat Koeri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All180
ORDERDesai, J. 1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution for the setting aside of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Banaras in revision against an order of a Panchayati Adalat in a case for correction of papers. The applicant started proceedings under the Land Revenue Act for correction of village records in a Tahsildar's Court. The matter being a contested one went before the Sub-Divisional Officer who examined some witnesses and then transferred the case to the Panchayati Adalat of Nagwa. The case was heard by five Panchas (including the Sarpanch) in the Panchayati Adalat. The Panchayati Adalat fixed 25th February 1951, for judgment. On that date all the five Panchas were present and the Sarpanch invited opinions of the four Panchas. Two of them, namely Sarwashri Baijnath Prasad and Nageshwar Ram did not give their oDinions while the other two (Sarvashri Alopi Nath and Sri Nath Singh) gave their opinion in favour of the applicant. The Sarpanch agr...
Tag this Judgment!Shudarshan Lal Dwivedi and ors. Vs. Dean of the Faculty of Science, Un ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All194
Malik, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution filed on behalf of thirteen students of the B. Sc. 1st Year class of the Allahabad University, The applicants were admitted to that class in July 1951. At the end of the academic year they sat for the examination in April 1952 and failed. They again sat for the supplementary examination in July 1952 and were declared unsuccessful. There was another supplementary examination later for which they sat and the examiners were not satisfied that they were entitled to get the minimum pass marks and thus they failed again. The applicants were, therefore, not promoted to the 2nd Year and remained in the 1st Year B. Sc. The applicants then moved the university Executive Council but it refused to interfere. It is on these facts that the applicants have come up to this Court and it has been urged on their behalf that there was no power in the University to hold an examination at the end of the 1st Year to determine whether ...
Tag this Judgment!Debi Prasad Malviya Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, United Provinces, Luckno ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All227; [1952]22ITR539(All)
ORDER1. In this reference under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act the point submitted by the Tribunal for opinion is as follows : 'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the notice under Section 34, Income-tax Act could be legally issued?' The assessee has filed an application under Section 66(4), Income-tax Act and has urged that another question should have been referred to this Court for opinion. This question he has formulated is as follows : 'Whether in the circumstances of the case when the applicant was not a party to the partnership deeds in Kanpur Iron Supply Co., and U.P. Iron Steel Co., and no share of profits from those firms were received by him he could in law be held to be a 'partner' of the said firm?' 2. The facts as they appear from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the statement of the case are that the assessee was being assessed as a Hindu undivided family. On 2nd December 1938, a partnership firm known as Kanpur Iron Steel Co., was started of whic...
Tag this Judgment!Bishambhar Dayal Vs. Girdhar Lal Odhavji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All158
ORDERChaturvedi, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision from the part of the order, passed by the First Civil Judge of Kanpur, holding that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the claim, for recovery of arrears of rent. 2. The suit was by the landlord for the enhancement of rent under Section 5(4), U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (3 of 1947), (hereinafter called the Act). The plaintiff wanted the rent to be fixed at a sum of Rs. 50/- per mensem and valued the suit at Rs. 600/-, the amount of rent for one year. He also claimed Rs. 900/- as arrears of rent for eighteen months at the same rate of Rs. 50/-per mensem. One of the pleas taken in defence was that the claim for recovery of arrears of rent was not cognizable by the learned Civil Judge and such a claim could not be joined to a suit for fixation of rent under Section 5(4) of the Act. This is the only point with which I am concerned in this revision. 3. The learned Civil Judge framed issue No. 4 on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Nath SarIn Vs. Uttar Pradesh Government and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All182
Agarwala, J. 1. This is an application praying that a writ of mandamus or certiorari restraining the opposite party from proceeding with the acquisition of the applicant's land may be issued and the proceedings may be quashed as being 'ultra vires', without jurisdiction and an abuse of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.2. The dispute in the case relates to a dilapidated house (or as the opposite party alleges a vacant piece of land) bearing old assessment No. 767 and present assessment No. 802 situate in Satghara Chatta Bazar, in the city of Mathura. The opposite party No. 2, the Provincial Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, wanted to acquire the disputed property to commemorate the memory of Swami Birja Nand, the Guru of Swami Daya Nand, the founder of the Arya Samaj, by building a library and a Yagyashala. On 4th October 1,948 a notification was issued by the Local Government under Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, inviting objections under Section 5-A of the said Act. The notifica...
Tag this Judgment!Tejpal Jamunadas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All435; [1953]23ITR123(All)
Malik, C.J.1. In this reference under Section66(2), Income-tax Act, the following questionshave been referred to this Court for its opinion:'Q. 1. Whether there was any evidence tojustify the conclusion of the Tribunalthat the debt of Rs. 67,186/- became badbefore the year under consideration? Q. 2. Whether the loss of business at Kanpurand at Calcutta can be legally allowedto be set off against the profits of therunning business at Mirzapur? Q. 3. Whether the expenses of the business atKanpur and at Calcutta can be legallyallowed as business expenses of the yearunder consideration?' 2. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the second question does not arise out of the appellate order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and it is, therefore, not necessary to answer that question.3. The assessee is a firm carrying on business in cloth, money-lending and commission agency etc. with its head office at Mirzapur and its branches at Kanpur and Calcutta. A long time ago, the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Gupta Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All115
ORDER1. In an application filed under Article 133 of the Constitution for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court the applicant filed an application under Order 44, Rule 1, Civil P. C., for being allowed to appeal in forma pauperis and attached to the application the list of properties held by him to show that ho was really a pauper. Notice of this application was issued by a Bench of this Court in May 1952. On the application coming up before us in September 1952, a point was raised that the application was not maintainable.2. We have heard learned counsel in support of the application at some length and we are not satisfied that in a matter of this kind we can grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis. There are only two provisions of the Civil Procedure Code that need be considered in this connection. Learned counsel has strongly relied on the provisions of Order 44, Civil P. C., and has urged that the language of Rule 1 of Order 44 is wide enough to include not only an appeal from a sub...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhunath Vs. Mst. Khadijatul Kubra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All184
Gurtu, J.1. This is a Court-fee matter which arises in this way. The superior proprietary rights in a village were sold. Three suits for pre-emption were thereafter filed being numbered 4, 5 and 13 of 1945. Suit No. 5 of 1945 was decreed. The other two suits were dismissed. Prabhu Nath, the appellant in the present appeals preferred an appeal to this Court from the decree passed in suit No. 5 of 1945. This is first Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1946. Likewise he filed an appeal against the dismissal of Suit No. 13 of 1945. This is First Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1946. On these two first appeals, a consolidated Court-fee of Rs. 1269/- was paid. They came up for final hearing on two dates before the Uttar Pradesh Zemindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (U. P. Act I of 1950) came into force. These appeals were also listed on several dates for hearing in the year 1951. On 1st July 1952, the vesting order under that Act was made. Thereafter these appeals were again listed for disposal. Keeping in vi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »