Allahabad Court September 1953 Judgments
Commr. of Income-tax, U.P., Lucknow Vs. Radhaswami Satsang Sabha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All291; [1954]25ITR472(All)
Malik, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act, made on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax against an order made by the Tribunal that the assessee was entitled to exemption under certain provisions of Section 4(3), Income-tax Act.2. The assessee is the Dayalbagh Satsang Sabha (hereafter called the Sabha in this judgment). This Sabha is a body registered under the Charitable Societies Registration Act (Act No. 21 of 1860).3. It may be necessary here to mention that in the year 1861 a new faith or religion was founded by Swami Shiv Dayal Singh, the followers of which were known as Satsangis to which Hindus, Mohamedans, Parsis or Christians could be initiated provided they were found to be fit and suitable by the spiritual head. The object of the religion, as described by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in -- 'Chhotabhai v. Janan Chandra was to attain true and perfect salvation by the liberation of the spirit from the bondage of mind and matter whic...
Tag this Judgment!Shiva Behari Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All255; (1954)ILLJ449All
ORDERRandhir Singh, J.1. The applicant in this case has been convicted under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, for having contravened the provisions of Section 62 of the Factories Act.2. It appears that one Sri P. C. Joshi, Inspector of Factories, U. P. inspected the factory of the applicant at Sitapur on the 16th March, 1952, Which was a Sunday. He found some persons working there and demanded the registers of workers. The registers of workers were not produced by anybody present and the Inspector of Factories had to come away. He reported the matter and ultimately a complaint was sent by the Chief Inspector of Factories to the City Magistrate, Sitapur. This complaint was received on the 11th June, 1952, when it was ordered to be transferred to the Factory Magistrate, for necessary action. The Magistrate to whom this case was transferred ordered on the 17th June, 1952, that summons might issue to the applicant. The case was then tried and the applicant was convicted and sentenced...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Padma Kant Malviya and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All523; 1955CriLJ904
Malik, C.J.1. I have read the judgments prepared by learned brothers Desai and Muherji, jj. and agreed to the answers proposed by them.2. So far as the second question is concerned, it presents no difficulty and it is not necessary for me to add anything to what has already been said. All that the Oaths Act provides is, that nothing contained in the Oaths Act shall authorise the administration of oath to an accused person in a criminal proceeding. Reliance is not placed by the learned Government Advocate on anything in the Oaths Act to entitle him to cross-examine the contemner.3. The third question is a little difficult. Article 20(3) of the Constitution provides that: 'No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself,'We are concerned with the words 'accused of an offence'. I shall not like in this case to consider the larger question whether the words 'accused of' are restrictive and mean a person against whom proceeding in a criminal court for any...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Swarup Bangalimal Vs. Commr. of Income Tax, U.P. and V.P., Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All665
Malik, C.J.1. The question referred to this Court for its decision in compliance with an order under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act is--'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the assessee was entitled to value his closing stock at market rate?'2. The assessee is a firm mainly carrying on wholesale cloth business. The accounts produced showed a total turn-over of Rs. 12,81,375/-. The receipts showed a balance of Rs. 9,263/- in favour of the assessee. After deducting certain expenses the assesses, however, worked out a net loss of Rs. 13,915/-. In preparing the Profit and Loss Account the assessee had valued his closing stock at the market rate at Bs. 1,64,191/-. The cost price of the said stock was, however, Rs. 2.27,913/-. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that the assessee should have valued his closing stock at the cost price as he had been doing in previous years and he added back the difference between Rs. 2,27,913/- and Rs. 1,64,191/-, i....
Tag this Judgment!Ramswarup Bengalimal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. and V.P., Lu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1953
Reported in: [1954]25ITR17(All)
MALIK, C.J. - The question referred to this Court for its decision in compliance with an order under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act is :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the assessee was entitled to value his closing stock at market rate ?'The assessee is a firm mainly carrying on wholesale cloth business. The accounts produced showed a total turnover of Rs. 12,81,375. The receipts showed a balance of Rs. 9,263 in favour of the assessee. After deducting certain expenses the assessee, however, worked out a net loss of Rs. 13,915. In preparing the profit and loss account the assessee had valued his closing stock at the market rate at Rs. 1,64,191. The cost price of the said stock was, however, Rs. 2,27,913. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that the assessee should have valued his closing stock at the cost price as he had been doing in previous years and he added back the difference between Rs. 2,27,913 and Rs. 1,64,191, i.e., Rs. 63,722. T...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pukar Singh Watchman Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All161
ORDERDesai, J.1. The applicant has been convicted under sections 161 and 116 I. P. C. by the courts below and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/-. He has been found guilty of having offered a bribe to the Assistant Superintendent Watch and Ward Department. There is no dispute about the facts which have been proved beyond any doubt.The applicant challenges his conviction on some legal grounds. One is that he was not informed by the trying Magistrate that he had right to examine himself in defence. It has been held by a Pull Bench of this Court -.'Raja Ram v. State' : AIR1954All204 , only a couple of days ago that a court is not bound to inform an accused, who is being prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, that he had a right to examine himself in defence and that his conviction cannot be quashed merely on account of the court's refusal or failure to inform him of the right.The occurrence took place on 4-11-49. The police investigated the case and finding it proved requested th...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Kanchan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All153
Desai, J.1. This is an appeal by the state against a judgment of the Sessions Judge of Banda acquitting the respondents of the offence of Section 396, I. P. C. It was alleged that they in the company of sixor seven others committed, a dacoity on the evening of 10-7-1950 on the road from Baberu to Kamasin at a place about two miles from Baberuand robbed police constable Phool Singh of police station Baberu of the Government gun and cartridges which he was carrying and murdered him.2. On 10-7-1950 the chaukidar of village Satniyaon made a report at police station Baberu that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace in his village. So the head constable deputed P. Cs. Phool Singh deceased and Hanif to go toSatniyaon at once. The deceased was given aGovernment gun and cartridges while Hanif carried his own gun. They went on cycles. They stayed in Satniyaon for some hours, found that everything was peaceful and at 4 or 4.15 P. M. left for Baberu. In order to go to Baberu one has to g...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Dulap Singh and ors. Vs. State Through Sri Har Nandan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All163
ORDERMukerji, J.1. This is a revision by seven persons against whom an order has been made by the Deputy Commissioner of Naini Tal, acting of course as a District Magistrate, on 15-1-1952 directing the lower court to order the commitment of the applicants to the court of session for a trial under Sections 147 and 307/149, I. P. C. The applicants were charged by a Magistrate for having committed offences punishable under Sections 147 and 323/149, I. P. C. in respect of a beating which they gave to the complainant of the case viz., Harinandan Prashad. It appears that Harinandan Prashad received serious injuries. Pour of these at least were contused wounds on the head of some significance. Harinsndan Prashad also received large contusions on his back. A 'prima facie' examination of the injury report indicates that Harinandan Prashad received a very sound beating. The trial proceeded before the Magistrate after the charge had been framed by him against the applicants. 3-12-1951 was fixed b...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Singh Vs. L. Hira Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All314
Randhir Singh, J.1. This appeal raises a short point. Gulab Singh 'alias' Sua Singh appellant made a mortgage of certain plots in favour of the plaintiff Hira Lal on the 5th January, 1951, and made over possession to the mortgagee Hira Lal. Hira Lal then made an application for fixation of ex-proprietary rent of these plots as Gulata Singh had his 'Khudkast' or 'Sir' in the plots. An objection was raised by the other brothers of Gulab Singh that Gulab Singh was the owner of only one-fourth share in the plots and had no right to make a mortgage of all the plots. This objection did not find favour with the Revenue Court and the three brothers of Gulab Singh then instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif for a declaration that the mortgage made by Gulab Singh was not binding on the three-fourths share in the plots and the plaintiff was not entitled to possession of the shares owned by the three brothers. This suit was decreed.The plaintiff then instituted the suit which has given rise ...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Prakash and ors. Vs. Bishambhar Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All215
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for demolition of constructions and for an injunction. The dispute in the case relates to an open piece of land surrounded on all sides by houses. The defendants have constructed a room on a portion of the said open piece of land and it is more or less in front of, but not attached to, their houses. It is marked AECD in the map which has been made part of the decree in the case. There are two outlets from the common court-yard, one to the north-west and the other to the south-east. On the south-east and south-west sides of this court-yard are the houses of the defendants. On the north-west and south are the houses of different people. The houses of the plaintiffs are to the north-east. The case for the plaintiffs was that the court-yard was generally a court-yard of the owners of the houses on all sides of it, and that the defendants had no right to make constructions in this open 'sehan' which was intended for various ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »