Allahabad Court November 1955 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.
Zawar Hasan and anr. Vs. Rakhaldas Banerji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All272
Kidwai, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by respondent 1, Rakhal Das. Banerji for the eviction of the appellants and respondent 2 from a house situated in Mirjan Lane in the city of Lucknow. The house was let to respondent 1 Mohammad Abdul Aleem in 1942 at Rs. 23/- per month.The rent was subsequently raised to Rs. 35/-per month. In October 1950 the owner wrote to his tenant to vacate the house since it was required for the owner's own use and occupation. The tenant failed to vacate and in the meanwhile sub-let the house to the appellants without authority or consent either from his landlord or from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.2. In June 1951 the owner returned to Luck-now and gave the tenant as well as the appellants notice to quit the house by 30-9-1951. The tenant paid up all the arrears of rent due upto. 30-9-1951 but the house was not vacated since the appellants continued to be in possession of it. The owner therefore instituted the suit out of whi...
L. Dwarka Dass Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle a Ward, Kanpur.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1955
Reported in: [1956]29ITR60(All)
CHATURVEDI, J. - This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution.The petitioner was a partner of the firm R. B. Lachhman Das Mohan Lal & Sons. The firm had declared its principal place of business as Lahore, though it appears that its main business was of manufacture and sale of sugar and its bye-products in the district of Lucknow, U.P. The petitioner and other partners of the firm deposited certain amounts as advance tax under section 18A of the Income-tax Act in Lahore before March 31, 1947, for the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48. As a result of partition of the country, two Dominions were formed with effect from August 15, 1947. It is not known whether assessments were made at Lahore for the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48, but it is not denied that assessment with respect to some income for these years were made at Lucknow. After this, an assessment was made for the year 1948-49 and the amount assessed was Rs. 2,16,994-7-0 on all the partners of the firm. It ap...
Bansi and ors. Vs. Hari Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All297; 1956CriLJ561
Mukerji, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the opinion of my learned brother James and I am in agreement with the conclusion arrivedat by him.2. The question which calls for our determination may be stated in the terms in which it has been stated by my learned brother, namely: 'Whether the order of a Magistrate under Section 145(4), Criminal P. C. which does not give any reasons for the order can or cannot be upheld because the learned Magistrate chose to make the order in Form XXII or Schedule V appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure?'Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in these terms:'The Magistrate shall then, without refer-ence to the merits of the claims of any of suchparties to a right to possess the subject of dis-pute, peruse the statement so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be pro-duced by them respectively, consider the effect of such evidence, take such further evidence if any as he thinks necessary, and, If possible, deci...
Mt. Mithan and anr. Vs. Municipal Board of Orai and State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All351; 1956CriLJ1383
Desai, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Orai, directing the applicants under Section 247(1), U. P. Municipalities Act to stop using their houses for habitual prostitution. The revision application has been filed under Sections435 and 439, Criminal P. C.When it was put up for disposal before our brother James, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Municipal Board that it was not maintainable. The contention of the Board was that an order passed by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 247(1) of the Municipalities Act cannot be revised by the High Court under Section 439, Criminal P. C.2. The High Court is authorised by Section 435 (1) of the Code to 'call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal Court.' Section 439 lays down that in the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which has been reported for orders, th...
Kamlapat Motilal Vs. Income-tax Officer and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1955
Reported in: [1956]29ITR192(All)
This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution the disposal of which has been delayed owing to an order directing that it be heard at the same time as in an income-tax reference with which it is now apparent it has very little connection.The petitioner is a firm which runs a sugar mill, and in its income-tax return of the year 1942-43 it claimed that a sum of Rs. 76,836, should be allowed as a deduction under section 10(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The relevant accounting year was from October 1, 1940, to September 30, 1941, and the firms case was that in the year preceding the accounting year it had sold 62,983 pounds of sugar, but as delivery of the sugar was given in the accounting year excise duty paid by the firm thereon amounting to Rs. 76,836 was a permissible deduction in the latter year. This deduction was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that it related to the sales effected during the preceding year. From that order the firm went in second appe...
Goverdhan Lal Jagdish Kumar Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, U.P., Lucknow an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All130; [1956]29ITR591(All)
ORDERMehrotra, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the order dated 27-5-1955 passed by the Income-tax Officer and a writ of mandamus be issued to the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Officer, A Ward, Farrukhabad, directing them not to realise the income-tax till the disposal of appeals filed by the petitioner.2. The petitioner was assessed by the Income-tax Officer, A Ward, Farrukhabad by his orders dated 15-3-1954, 28th February, 7th February, and 15th March 1955 to an income-tax: amounting to Rs. 75,477/- for the assessment years 1945 to 1951. Appeals were filed against the aforesaid orders before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.A notice of demand was sent to the applicant and on his failure to deposit the amount of the tax, the applicant was ordered, by an order dated 27-5-1955, to deposit the whole amount of tax, within three days. Thereafter the penalty was to be imposed upon the ...
Parma Nand Vs. Champa Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All225
Agarwala, J.1. The following question has been referred to this Bench for decision:'Does Section 43, T. P. Act, require that the transferee who can take advantage of it should be one to, whom not only a fraudulent or erroneous representation about the transferor's authority to transfer the property is made but should also be one who did not have knowledge of the true factual position and had merely acted on the belief of the erroneous or fraudulent representation made to him by the transferor?'2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows: One Bhagwati Prasad sold a shop, No. 89 in the city of Jhansi to Lachhman Hao Telang in the year 1936. The vendee could not obtain possession over the shop and so in 1946 filed a suit for recovery of possession.During the pendency of the suit he transferred his rights to one Parmanand, who was then substituted as plaintiff for him. The defence to the suit was that Bhagwati Prasad owned only half the shop in 1936, the other half belonging to ...
Dy. Commissioner, Rae Bareli and anr. Vs. Har NaraIn Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All205
H.S. Chaturvedi, J.1. This is a defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 446/-.2. The facts of the case, which are not disputed, are briefly given below.3. In the year 1930 a Society was formed in village Saleempur Bhairon, district Rae Bareli. This Society was styled as 'Better Living Society . Ltd.', (hereinafter referred to as the Society). Some of the inhabitants of that village became its members. Har Narain Lal, plaintiff, who is a resident of the village was its member from the very inception of the Society and later on in June 1938 he was elected to the post of the President of the Society. He continued to hold this office till 15-10-1943.The object of the Society was generally to improve the lot of the villagers by various methods. Among other objects, the Society undertook to repair and construct roads, wells and akharas in village Saleempur. The Government of the Province too in order to improve the conditions of rural areas, were carrying on vario...
Raj Behari Lal and ors. Vs. Dr. Mahabir Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All310
Agarwala, J. 1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by my learned brother V. D. Bhargava, and as I generally agree with him. I need not recite the facts again or deal with the cases referred to by him at length. 2. A minor cannot sue by himself nor can he be sued without being represented by someone else. This someone else is called a 'next friend' when the minor is the plaintiff in an action, and is called a 'guardian ad litem' when the minor is a defendant. The nomenclature does not matter, and the real fact is that the next friend or the guardian ad litem represents the Interest of the minor. 3. Once a person has been named either the next friend or the guardian of the minor, reason requires that he should continue to represent the minor through all the off-shoots of the proceedings, for it would be anomalous if without the removal of the representative already named someone else were to commence representing the minor. If there are different representatives at...
Abdul Rahim Vs. State Through Salik Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All319; 1956CriLJ269
ORDERKidwai, J. 1. One Abdur Rahim who was working as Station Master was prosecuted under Section 161 of the Penal Code for having accepted a bribe of Rs. 600/- from Mahabir and Thagram. The case was tried by a Special Magistrate of the first class of Lucknow and ended in the acquittal of Abdur Rahim. Abdur Rahim then applied for restoration of Rs. 600/- which had been taken from him by the police. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 11-4-1953, rejected the application of Abdur Rahim for return of the money.2. The matter was taken up in appeal and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Abdur Rahim then came in revision to this Court and his revision application was allowed by my learned brother Hari Shankar, J. by his order dated 8-12-1954. My learned brother, however, failed to hear the complainant opposite party, viz., Salik Ram and consequently an application was made under Section 561A, Criminal P. C. for set-ting aside the order passed and for a re-hearing of the r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »