Allahabad Court November 1952 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.
The State Through Ruppa Vs. Rakshpal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All520
ORDERP.L. Bhargava, J.1. Rakshpal Singh 'alias' Rajpal Singh and his brothers, Rampal Singh and Ram Singh, along with their father, Makrand Singh, were prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 325, read with Section 34, Penal Code for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Ruppa, the complainant. The accused persons were tried by an Honorary Special Magistrate of first class at Hardoi. The Magistrate found Rampal Singh and Ram Singh not guilty and acquitted them; but he came to the conclusion that Rakshpal Singh alias Rajpal Singh and Makrand Singh had committed an offence punishable under Section 323, Penal Code and as such the case against them was triable by a Panchayati Adalat. In this view of the case, he transferred it to the Panchayati Adalat for disposal.2. Against the order of the Magistrate, Rakshpal Singh and Makrand Singh filed a revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Hardoi. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the order of the Magistrate dire...
Bijadhar Ram Dwarka Ram Ballia, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1952
Reported in: [1953]23ITR343(All)
MALIK, C.J. - This is a reference under Section 66(I) of the Indian Income-tax Act by which the Appellate Tribunal has referred to us the following question for our decision :- 'Whether there is any change in the person carrying on the business within the meaning of Section 8(I) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, when the business which was previously carried on and owned by a Hindu undivided family is on partial partition of the family carried on and owned by a partnership composed of the members of the quondam family in contractual relationship ?'The facts need only be briefly stated. There was a joint Hindu family consisting of three brothers, Radha Kishan, Kamta Prasad, Laxmi Prasad and their nephew, Gopalji. On the 2nd of April, 1943, the joint Hindu family partitioned the business between the members thereof and from the 3rd of April the business was carried on by them as partners. This partnership was registered under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act and was thereafter...
Haji Ghulam HussaIn Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, United Provinces, Luckno ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1954All26; [1953]23ITR309(All)
Malik, C.J. 1. The question referred to this Court under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act is as follows:'Whether in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 28 (3) and impose a penalty under Section 28 (1) (a), Income-tax Act?'2. The assessee in reply to a notice under Section 22 (2), Income-tax Act had filed his return, but he had not mentioned the status in which the return was being filed, nor had he given the date on which he had filed his return. The form prescribed in the Indian Income-tax Act requires these facts to be also mentioned in the return that is to be filed by an assessee. The Income-tax Officer, however, overlooked the defects and proceeded to complete the assessment. In the course of the assessment proceedings he discovered certain deliberate omissions made in the account books and he, therefore, issued a notice to the assessee to show cause why penalty under Section 28 (1) be not imposed on hi...
Laxmi Talkies Ltd. Through Kashi Bishambhar Agarwal, Managing Director ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All444
Sapru, J. 1. This application has been presented on behalf of the Laxmi Talkies Ltd., through its managing Director, Shri Kashi Bishambhar Agarwal. The relief claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution is that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ or suitable direction quashing the order of requisition passed by the opposite party, on 26-5-1952 under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Storage Requisition Act, 1947.2. The applicant is a limited company incorporated for purposes of exhibiting films at Allahabad. It is admitted that the building in question was never used for storage purposes. The building is not meant for storage purposes and it consists of delicate fittings. Nevertheless, on 26-5-1952 an order of requisition was passed by the Collector. This order could be passed under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Storage Requisition Act of 1947 only with the prior sanction of the State Government. Section 3(1) empowers the Collector to requisition any storage accommodation...
Lachhman Pandey Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, U.P. and Ajmer-merwara, Luck ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All488
Malik, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, and the question, which has been referred to us for decision, is as follows:'Q. Whether, on the finding of fact that Pandit Lachhman Prasad was, at the commencement of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act of 1939, carrying on the business in his capacity as an 'individual' but was succeeded in his capacity as Karta of an Hindu undivided family by his sons under the award of 31-3-1941, the provisions of Section 25 (4) of the Income-tax Act allow any relief to him?'In other words, the question for our decision is whether the estate of Lachhman Prasad Pandey is entitled to the benefit under the provisions of Section 25 (4), Income-tax Act.2. Pandit Lachhman Prasad Pandey had three sons, Chintamani Pandey, Vishnu Datt Pandey and Hari Datt Pandey. He was assessed to income-tax from the assessment year 1918-19 to the assessment year 1926-27. It was not mentioned in what capacity he was being assessed but, from the order...
Pt Lachhman Pandey in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1952
Reported in: [1953]23ITR250(All)
MALIK, C.J. - This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act and the question, which has been referred to us for decision, is as follows :-'Whether, on the finding of fact that Pandit Lachhman Prasad was, at the commencement of the Indian income tax (Amendment) Act of 1939, carrying on the business in his capacity as an individual but was succeeded in his capacity as karta of an Hindu undivided family by his sons under the award of 31st March, 1941, the provisions of Section 25(4) of the Income-tax Act. allow any relief to him ?' In other words, the question for our decision is whether the estate of Lachhman Prasad Pandey is entitled to the benefit under the provisions of Section 25(4) of the Indian income-tax Act.Pandit Lachhman Prasad Pandey had three sons, Chintamani Pandey, Vishnu Datt Pandey and Hari Datt Pandey. He was assessed to income-tax from the assessment year 1918-19 to the assessment year 1926-27. It was not mentioned in what capacity he was being as...
Baldeo Vs. Deo NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1954All104
ORDERBeg, J.1. This is a revision against acquittal. It has been filed on behalf of one Baldeo who was the complainant in the case out of which these proceedings have arisen. The prosecution case, as stated by Baldeo, was as follows: On 15-9-1949, at about 8 or 9 o'clock in the morning his brothers, Chini Prasad, Maldhi, Bansi and Panch Ratan, were repairing the boundary wall of their grove when six persons, named Deo Narain Singh, Lal Bahadur Singh, Lal Saheb, Jagannath, Indrapal Singh and Amarnath Singh came to the spot armed with lathis. They tried to stop his brothers from repairing the said boundary wall. His brothers insisted on doing it. Then Deo Narain Singh abused them and shouted out to ais companions to beat them. Thereupon all the accused persons started beating Maldhi and others. Maldhi's arm was fractured. Panch Ratan received lathi injuries. Bansi and Chini Prasad also got injuries. On hearing the alarm Jokhan came on the scene. He was also beaten -by the accused and rec...
Commr. of Income-tax, United Provinces, Lucknow Vs. Lachhman Das Mool ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1954All53; [1953]24ITR298(All)
Malik, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1), Indian Income-tax Act, and the point raised is a nice question of law on which learned counsel are agreed that there is no previous decision. The question formulated by the Tribunal is as follows:-'Whether in the circumstances of the case, a loss of Rs. 19,228/- sustained by the assessee in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1942-43 could legally be treated as a carried forward loss in the assessment year 1944-45 and be set off under the provisions of Section 24 (2) I. T. Act, against the profits from the same business for the previous year relevant to the 1944-45 assessment in spite of the fact that it was not so set off although there were profits from the same business to cover the loss in the previous year relevant to 1943-44 assessment?'2. The facts are really not in dispute. The assessee carried on business at Delhi and at Agra. At the head office at Agra the assessee carried on business in ready goods in colo...
Lalta Prasad Vs. Brahmanand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All449
Brij Mohan Lall, J. 1. This is an appeal by one of the defendants against a decree of the learned Civil Judge of Kanpur. 2. It appears that one Debi Din owned an area of one 'biswa' out of plot No. 840 abutting on a public road in Juhi Khurd, Kanpur. By means of a registered deed dated 29-5-1914 he dedicated this area for the purpose of establishing a 'guashala'. One Shyam Lal alias Shamlu Baba, who was the 'pujari' of Maha-birji's temple in Cooperganj at Kanpur, was appointed a trustee under this deed. Shyam Lal agreed to construct a 'gaushala', a well, a cattle trough & four pucca shops 'with his own money'. He did erect certain constructions. Sometimes later he hypothecated the land and the constructions to the appellant. The latter is the natural born son of one Ram Asrey, but has been adopted by his (Ram Asrey's) brother Bisheshwar Prasad. Ram Asrey, Bisheshwar Prasad and their sons form a joint Hindu family. 3. Ram Asrey had a simple money decree against Shyam Lal and in executio...
Rukmi Sewak and ors. Vs. Mt. Munesari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All332
ORDERMushtaq Ahmad, J. 1. This is an application in revision by the first three defendants in a suit for partition of a one-third share in a house. There was also a relief in the plaint that the plaintiff might be awarded the entire house on the principle embodied in Section 4, Partition Act, 4 of 1893. 2. The original owner of the house was one Parag who had two sons, Mahabir and Sahdeo. The former left a daughter Mt. Munesari, the plaintiff-opposite party, and the latter two sons, Shyam Narain and Bal Makund, defendants 4 and 5 respectively. On 2-7.1918, Parag made a will of the house, bequeathing a life interest in a one-third share to the plaintiff and an absolute interest in the remaining two-thirds to defendants 4 and 5. Some time later defendants 4 and 5 mortgaged the entire house to defendants 1 to 3, the present applicants. In 1938 the plaintiff sued for redemption of the mortgage and obtained a decree. Pending an appeal filed by defendants 1 to 3 against that decree these def...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »