Allahabad Court December 1954 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.
Om Prakash Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All275; 1955CriLJ754
H.S. Chaturvedi, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of my learned brother, Mulla J.2. Om Prakash, who has come up in revision, was a divisional accountant in the Sarda Canal, Sitapur section, and in that capacity he was entrusted with Government monies. On an inspection of the accounts by the Accounts Officer, it was discovered that certain sums of money amounting to Rs. 1,491/9/- had been embezzled by the applicant. He reported the matter to the officers of the canat department, who handed over the case to the police with the result that, after investigation, the applicant was prosecuted for offences under Section 409 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. He was tried in the Court of Sri Abul Maqtadir, a Magistrate of the first class, Sitapur. At the trial, the applicant pleaded that he should have been prosecuted and tried for an offence under Section 5(1)(c), Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947) and not under the general law. The other plea raised was t...
Ganga Bakhsh Singh and ors. Vs. Madho Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All288
Malik C.J.1. This case was referred to this Bench, as it raised a question of law on which there was a difference of opinion between a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court and some Division Bench rulings of the Avadh Chief Court. The point for decision is whether a reversioner who had given his consent to a gift made by a Hindu widow of a part of her husband's property could claim possession of that property on the death of the widow, the succession having opened in his favour.2. The facts of the case are that one Padam Singh died issueless in the year 1899 leaving a widow Deoka Kuar, who got possession of his estate. On 16-11-1916, Deoka Kuar and four other persons, Tikam Singh, Jit Singh, Bhikham Singh and Tilak Singh, who were the presumptive rever-sioners on that date, executed a deed of gift in favour of Niranjan Singh, Dharmu. Singh and Har Baklish Singh, sister's sons of Deoka Kuar, transferring to them one-sixth share in the estate. On 10-11-1931, Deoka Kuar died and Bhikham ...
Om Prakash Vs. Sm. Tahera Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All382
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal against the dismissal of the judgment-debtor's objection to the maintainability of a second application for execution during the pendency of the first application for execution We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and are of opinion that there is no force in this appeal.2. Learned counsel for the appellant refers us to Order 21, Rule 11 (2) Clause (f) which provides that every application for execution of a decree will state whether any, and (if any) what, previous applications have been made for the execution of the decree, the, dates of such applications and their results. It is contended that the necessity of noting the result of the previous execution application means that so long as one execution application has not been finally disposed of no second execution application can be filed, and that therefore this provision of the Code of Civil Procedure operates as a bar to the presentation of a second execution application during the...
Azmat Ullah and ors. Vs. the Custodian, Evacuee Property, U.P., Luckno ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All435
Mootham, C.J. 1. The following question has been referred to a Full Bench by two learned Judges of this Court: 'Where the relief claimed is a writ o 'mandamus' relating to property situate within the jurisdiction of one High Court directed to an officer residing within the jurisdiction of that Court and it was that officer who and whose subordinates, also residing within the jurisdiction of the same High Court, originally passed the orders complained of but the writ cannot issue without setting aside, in exercise of the power of 'certiorari', the order passed in appeal, or revision by an authority residing outside the jurisdiction of that High Court and within the jurisdiction of another High Court, which is the High Court competent under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue the writ?'2. It is necessary to state shortly the circumstances in which the reference has been made. On 8-9-1949, the Deputy Custodian of' Evacuee Property, Gonda, in the exercise of powers vested in him under...
Deota DIn Vs. Gur Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All292
Malik, C.J.1. This case was referred to a Full Bench of seven Judges by reason of a conflict between certain decisions of the Chief Court at Lucknow and a decision of a Pull Bench of five Judges at Allahabad.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for joint possession over a Kothri marked in a plan attached to the plaint, for perpetual injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the said Kothri, for declaration of his right to build a Sahadra which had fallen down and for recovery of Rs. 70/- the price of the plaintiff's share of the materials of the Sahadra which, it was alleged, had been misappropriated by defendants 1 and 2. The suit was contested by defendants 1 and 2, and the other defendants were more or less 'pro forma'.3. The learned Munsif decreed the suit in part. On appeal by the defendants 1 and 2, the lower appellate Court set aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiff's suit in its entirety. When t...
Mahabir Prasad Niranjanlal Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, U.P. and V.P., Lu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All296; [1955]27ITR268(All)
Malik, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The questions originally referred to this Court were as follows :'1. (a) Whether an order passed by an Appellate Assistant Commissioner refusing to admit an appeal by holding that it was not presented within time is an order under Section 30, Clause (2), of the Income-tax Act or under Section 31 of the Act?(b) Whether an appeal is competent to the Tribunal from such order?'2. An application was filed under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act, stating that certain other questions of law arose out of the Appellate Order and praying that those questions should also be referred to this Court for decision. By an order of this Court dated 19-9-1950, the Appellate Tribunal was directed to refer certain other questions, and as a result of that order a fresh reference was made and besides the questions mentioned above three other questions were framed which were as follows :'2. Whether an appeal to the Appellate Assis...
Pramesh Chandra Gupta and ors. Vs. the Registrar, High Court of Judica ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All269
Agarwala, J.1. This is an application by fifteen Law Graduates who has attended the chambers of senior Advocates authorized to give them training for the puspose of enrolment as Advocates of this Court for more than a year, praying that this Court may be pleased to accept their applications for enrolment as Advocates, and admit them to the roll of Advocates of this Court authorising them, to practice in this court and in the courts subordinate thereto. It is alleged that the applicants approached the Registrar of the High Court to accept their applications for enrolment as Advocates of this Court but the Registrar informed them that such applications could not be entertained and that the applicants could not be enrolled as there was no Bar Council validly functioning in this State. The contention of the applicants is that this Court has power to enrol them as Advocates entitled to practise in this Court even in the absence of a Bar Council.2. The difficulty in respect of the applicatio...
Kunjlal Nawal Bihari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All333
Malik, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(1), Income-tas Act read with Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act and relates to three assessment years, 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47. The relevant chargeable accounting periods are from 9-11-1942 to 28-10-1943; 29-10-1943 to 16-10-1944; and 17-10-1944 to 4-11-1945. (2) The questions of law referred to us for decision are as follows: '1. Whether in the circumstances stated in para 3 of the statement of the case, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to go into the question of the validity of Section 15, E. P. T. assessment proceedings and could legally deal with Section 10A, E. P. T. appeal relating to the chargeable accounting period ending 28-10-1943 independently of that consideration? 2. Whether on the facts stated in the statement of the case, the Tribunal could legally draw the inference that the main purpose with which the firm of Kunjlal Banwarilal was formed and the division of gold sovereign of the Sarrafa shop was mad...
Juggilal Kamlapat Cotton Spinning and Weaving Co., Ltd. Vs. Commission ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1954
Reported in: [1955]28ITR78(All)
MOOTHAM, J. - This is a reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the assessee being a private limited company. The company held its annual general meeting on the 13th April, 1939, and on the 7th September following it filed a return in respect of the assessment year 1939-40 disclosing an assessable income of Rs. 42,510. The statement of the companys income was not however accepted by the Income-tax Officer, and as the company did not produce its account books when required to do so that Officer acted under section 23(4) of the Act and determined the sum payable by the assessee to be Rs. 8,17,137. This assessment order was made on the 29th June, 1942. Thereafter, on the 16th September, 1944, the Income-tax Officers successor-in-office, being of opinion that the assessee had in respect of the year in question distributed less than sixty per cent. of its assessable income, made with the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner an order under section...
The Bhopal Trading Co., Kanpur Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1954
Reported in: [1955]28ITR478(All)
MOOTHAM, J. - These cases arise out of the assessment for several years of the same assessee, the Bhopal Trading Company, which was assessed to income-tax and excess profits tax as an unregistered firm.In Bhopal State outside British India, there was a limited liability company, known as The Straw Products Ltd. The assessee firm was the selling agent of that company and had an office in Bhopal. It had not been assessed to income-tax prior to 1942 but on the 11th of September, 1942, a notice under section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act was issued to the assessee in Bhopal State. On the 18th of September, 1942, the assessee firm sent a reply stating that as it had not office at Kanpur and carried on business and had its office outside the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, the notice and the blank form for submitting a return were returned. On the 25th of September, 1942, the Income-tax Officer informed the assessee that the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Provinces and Unit...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »