Allahabad Court April 1959 Judgments
Capco Ltd. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All62; [1958]9STC553(All)
Mootham, C.J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner is a private limited company which has its head office in Calcutta and branches at various places in India, including Kanpur. It carries on the business of importing and selling dyes, chemicals, plastics and other similar goods. During the assessment year ending the 31st March 1954 the petitioner's products were sold to buyers in Uttar Pradesh both by its Kanpur branch and by its branches at Bombay and Madras and its head office in Calcutta. 3. The Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur, by an assessment order dated the 28th July 1955 has assessed the petitioner to sales tax in the sum of Es. 2,426-11-6 on the turnover of sales effected outside the Uttar Pradesh of goods supplied to buyers in the Uttar Pradesh. 4. The petitioner now challenges the validity of this assessment on the ground that as the sales took place outside this State they cannot, under Article 286(1) of the Constitution, be subject to tax...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Hori Lal and anr. Vs. the Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All133
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This is an application under Order XLV, Rule 4, of the Civil Procedure Code in Supreme Court Appeal No. 257 of 1958.2. The facts leading to this application are as follows. One Oudh Behari Singh was a tenant of several plots of land in village Luhiyapur, tahsil Auraiya, district Etawah. He surrendered his tenancy rights in favour of the Zamindar Bishambhar Singh, in 1947. The zamindar then leased out the plots to different persons under written leases. Certain other persons' laid claim to the tenancy rights in such land. The result was that the different lessees who constituted thirteen sets instituted thirteen suits against the persons claiming tenancy rights in the plots of land leased out to the respective set of plaintiffs.The trial court decreed the suits. The decrees were maintained on appeal by the defendants. The defendants then filed second appeals before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue held that these thirteen appeals had abated on account of t...
Tag this Judgment!Swarup Sing Vs. the Election Tribunal, Municipal Board, Aligarh and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All66
Mootham, C.J.1. I agree that this petition must be dismissed. The question is whether the five ballot papers which had been marked on the back are valid. The circumstances in which the question arises are, it is to be hoped, most unusual. On the face of these ballot papers are printed four vertical columns headed respectively (in Hindi) Serial number; Names of candidates with party affiliation, if any; Facsimile of symbols assigned; and Space for marking. On the back of the form is printed the number of the form and the instructions for voters. In the case of each of these ballot papers, with the doubtful exception of ballot paper No. 140, the ink used for impressing on the face of the ballot paper the vertical and horizontal lines, the names of the candidates and the symbols has penetrated the ballot papers with the result that everything printed on the face of the ballot papers appears also on the back of it, although of course the order of the columns, the symbols and the names of t...
Tag this Judgment!Uttar Pradeshiya Shramik Maha Sangh, Lucknow and anr. Vs. State of Utt ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All45; (1960)ILLJ745All
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the legality of an order of the Regional Conciliation Officer, Lucknow, rejecting the application of Uttar Pradeshiya Shramik Maha Sangh Lucknow seeking to initiate conciliation proceedings before that officer. The petitioner No. 1 is the aforesaid Sangh and the petitioner No. 2, Anwar Ali Rizvi, is a workman of Ram Chandra & Sons Sugar Mills Limited Bam Banki. The second petitioner was added during the hearing of this case with the permission of the Court. The petitioners were also permitted to file asupplementary affidavit giving additional facts insupport of their case. The petition involves, interalia the constitutionality of Section 6-1 (3) of theU. P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and of rule40 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules 1947made under that Act. There is not much controversy about the facts on which this petition isfounded. Very briefly the case of the petitionersas stated in the...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Randhir Sri Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All727; 1959CriLJ1274
1. Randhir, Tarif, Ram Prasad, Jaipal, Ram Narain and Ajab Singh were tried before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Meerut, for offences under Sections 399 and 402, I. P. C. on the ground that on the 16th September 1956 at Lisari Gate, Meerut city, they had made preparations for and assembled for committing dacoity. Randhir, Tarjf, Ram Narain and Ajab Singh were further charged under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act with possession of unlicensed fire-arms. The learned Judge convicted these four under Section 19(f) and awarded a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- each.But in respect of the major charges under Sections 399 and 402, I. P. C., he came to the conclusion that the evidence on the record was not sufficient to establish them, hence he acquitted all the accused of these charges. The State Government have preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal. We might state that the four men convicted under Section 19(f), Arms Act, appear to have submit...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Co., Kanpur Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All278; [1959]37ITR461(All)
V. Bhargava, J. 1. In this reference under Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, read with Section 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, the following two questions have been referred for the opinion of this Court : 'Q. 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was evidence to hold that the amount of Rs. 2,51,425/- represented trade debt from J. K. Kothi and as such would be excluded in the computation of the average capital of the assesses for the relevant chargeable accounting period? Q. 2. Whether the observation of the Tribunal contained in its remand order dated 20-3-1947, as also the observations in the other preceding orders were merely in the nature of obiter dicta and did not amount to giving any findings of fact relevant for the decision of the appeal or were binding on the Tribunal when it finally decided the matter on. 29-7-47?' The Tribunal submitted these questions for opinion of this Court with a statement of case drawn up by the...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Prasad Vs. State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All323
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the legality of an order passed by the Commissioner, Agra Division dismissing the petitioner from service.2. The facts as alleged in the petitioner's affidavit supporting the petition are these: He was appointed as a paid apprentice in the Collectorate at Mathura in 1948 and confirmed as a clerk in March 1951. He claims to have worked honestly and efficiently in the discharge of his duties. In February 1955 he was working as Moharrir Judicial In the Tehsil of Sadabad when the Collector of Mathura inspected the Tehsil. According to the petitioner's version, the Collector called him to his camp and enquired about the complaints of bribery which were alleged to be pending against the Tehsildar.The petitioner states that he refused to answer any question and was transferred to the Sadar Treasury at Mathura. On 16-5-1955 the petitioner was again summoned by the Collector at his residence and was direct...
Tag this Judgment!Rana Pratap Singh Vs. Deputy Registrar (Academic) Banaras Hindu Univer ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All256
ORDERM.L. Chaturvedi, J.1. This writ petition and six others, connected with it, arise out of the unseemly incidents which happened in the Banaras Hindu University in the autumn of last year. As a consequence number of students were awarded punishments of fine, rustication and expulsion, and these writ petitions are from students, who have either been rusticated or expelled from the University. The points that arise for decision in all these writ petitions are the same and the writ petitions can consequently be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. While referring to particular facts. I shall refer to the facts of the case of Writ Petition No. 356 of 1959, Rana Pratap Singh v. Deputy Registrar, Banaras Hindu University and others.2. Rana Pratap Singh petitioner was a student of B. A. Final class of the University. He received a letter dated the 29th October 1958, which contained three charges against him and direction to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken a...
Tag this Judgment!Boodan Vs. Asstt. Custodian General, Evacuee Property and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All722
ORDERB. Mukerji, J.1. This is a petition by Boodan praying for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order to be issued by this Court against the Assistant Custodian General commanding him to produce the record of the case referred to in the petition and thereafter to quash the order made by the Assistant Custodian General on the 19th January 1959.2. It appears that in respect of certain plots of land bhumidhari rights were claimed. These plots of land were evacuee property and under the law bhumidhari rights in respect of evacuee property could only be granted by the Custodian of the Evacuee Properties on the fulfilment of certain conditions. Certain orders were made by an Assistant Custodian (Judicial) I, Meerut. Thereafter a petition in revision was made and final orders on that revision appear to have been made by the Assistant Custodian General. The Assistant Custodian General happened to be functioning at Lucknow.3. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of t...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance Carpet and Company Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1959
Reported in: [1959]10STC315(All)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byA.P. Srivastava, J.1. A joint reference was submitted to this Court under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. It had been made at the request of four firms, Messrs Samad Carpets Ltd., Messrs Mohammad Ayub & Sons, Messrs Mohammad Macki Mohamood Alam and Messrs Reliance Carpet Co. All these four firms belong to Bhadohi, district Banaras, and were traders in carpets. The first named firm supplied carpets to orders placed by Messrs Bowden Carpet Co. Ltd., while the other three firms did the same against orders placed by Sri H. W. Fenoulhet. All the four firms were assessed to sales tax on the basis that they were dealers as defined in the Sales Tax Act and had sold carpets to the persons to whom the carpets had been supplied by them. They raised two objections to the assessment. The first was that they were not dealers as they had not sold the carpets. They claimed to be only manufacturing agents who had manufactured carpets against orders placed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »