Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1962]46ITR1236(All)
GURTU J. - The Income-tax Tribunal on the application of the assessee has referred for the opinion of this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following question of law :'Whether, on a true interpretation of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 30 and sections 31 and 33 of the Indian Income-tax Act, the appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Tribunal was not competent ?'The facts stated by the Tribunal, so far as they are relevant, are that the income-tax and super-tax payable by the assessee for the assessment year 1954-54 was Rs. 73,167-13-0. By a demand notice issued under section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee to pay the tax on or before the 8th of July, 1955. As the tax was not paid on or before the due date, the Income-tax Officer passed an order on the 27th of January 1956, under sub-section (1) of section 46 of the Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000. Against this last mention...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1961All509
Dwivedi, J.1. By this petition under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution the petitioner prays for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court against our decision in F. A. No. 54 of 1953. The respondent, has raised a preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable because our decision is neither a judgment, nor a decree nor a final order. It has accordingly become necessary to set out facts in some detail.2. Pursuant to a General Improvement and Street Scheme, called the Raipurwa Scheme, framed by the Kanpur Improvement Trust the respondent's house with its compound was acquired. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer the respondent applied for a reference to the Tribunal. By its order dated November 22, 1957 the Tribunal enhanced the amount of compensation payable to him. He was still not satisfied and preferred an appeal to this Court. We have further increased the amount of compensation. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs. 118429-8,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1961All529
ORDERJ.K. Tandon, J.1. This is an application by one Ram Asrey appellant for review of my order dated the 23rd August, 1960: It may be of use to mention a few facts.2. A suit for partition, was commenced by Rameshwar Prasad claiming a third share in certain properties including a house which had been purchased by Rani Asrey applicant. One of the questions before the court below was as regards the legality of the sale deed in favour of Ram Asrey. One allegation was that the same had been procured through exercise of fraud and misrepresentation.The trial Court accepted this contention and held against Ram Asrey in the matter of purchase of the house by him. Ram Asrey not satisfied with that judgment has come up in appeal. One of the points which thus presented itself for decision was about the effective nature of the sale deed in favour of Rani Asrey.3. While the appeal was pending the appellant, i.e. Ram Asrey and respondent Rameshwar Prasad settled their differences and presented a com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1961]43ITR90(All)
GURTU J. - The following question has been referred to us for an answer :'Whether the loss of cash of Rs. 1,06,000 by dacoity is admissible as a deduction under section 10(1) of the Act in computing the assessees income from banking business ?'The following facts which have been stated in the referring order may be mentioned. The assessee, the Nainital Bank Ltd., is a public limited company which carries on the business of banking. The previous year of the assessee company is the calendar year, the relevant previous year for the assessment in question being the calendar year 1951. The assessee company had various branches. One of the branches of the assessee was situated at Ramnagar. The money of the branch was kept in iron safes. On June 11,1951, at about 7 p.m. eleven persons dressed in olive green uniforms of military pattern and armed with rifles and other lethal weapons raided the Ramnagar branch of the assessee bank and extorted the keys of various safes from the manager. The dac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1962)ILLJ678All
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. The respondent 2, Bharat Singh was an employee of the petitioner, the Lord Krishna Sugar Mills, Limited, Saharanpur (hereinafter referred to as the mills). Finding him guilty of misconduct, the management of the mills dismissed him with effect from 27 November 1958. The conciliation proceedings started in this connexion proved to be infructuous and the regional conciliation officer reported to the State Government accordingly. The Government did not make a reference under Section 4K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act (herein below referred to as the Act) and apparently closed the file. The respondent 2, however, made an application to the labour court, Meerut, on 21 October 1959, purporting to be under Section 11C of the Act praying 'that 'the charge-sheet on the basis of which the petitioner was dismissed. the order suspending him, dated 21 November 1958 and the one dismissing him from service, dated 2 December 1958, be set aside. On this application, not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1961All511
Srivastava, J. 1. Special Appeal No. 373 of 1960 and writ petition No. 1987 of 1960 are connected with each other and it will therefore, be convenient to dispose them of together.2. By a notification published on the 6th of June 1959 the Regional Transport Authority invited applications to fill certain vacancies on the Pilibhit-Bisalpur-Bisanda route. Seventy three persons applied for stage carriage permits on the route and all the applications were published in the Gazette dated the 5th of September 1959. The seventy three applicants included Sri Nirmal Das Khattooria, Sri Mohammad Tahir and Sri Bankey Lal Vidyarthi. All the applications were considered by the Regional Transport Authority in the meetings held on the 7th and 8th of December, 1959.The other applications were rejected but permits were granted in respect of the route to Sri Bankey Lal Vidyarthi and Sri Nirmal Das Khattoo-ria. The other persons concerned submitted to the order but five appeals were filed against the decisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1961)ILLJ668All
O.H. Mootham, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of a learned Judge dated 16 October 1959 dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. In 1948 the appellant, who was at that time about 21 years of age, was appointed a paid apprentice in the Collectorate, Etah. Shortly thereafter he was suspended in connexion. with an embezzlement case in the department, but he was reinstated to his post on 2 November 1953. On 20 March 1955 he was placed on probation for six months and at the expiry of that period the Collector confirmed him in his post as a paid apprentice. The maximum age for appointment was 25 years, and as by that time the appellant was 27 years old the Collector wrote to the Board of Revenue in February 1956 asking that he be exempted from compliance with the age-limit. On 5 June 1956 the Administrative Member of the Board of Revenue refused to grant exemption in the case of the appellant, although he allowed exemption in the case of another paid apprentice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1961All515; [1961(2)FLR509]
Mootham, C.J. 1. The State of Utter Pradesh and the Collector of Azamgarh have preferred this appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Mehrotra dated the 3rd May, 1957, by which he allowed a petition filed by the respondent No. 1 Sri Audh Narain Singh under Article 226 of the Constitution and quashed an order removing the respondent from service and a subsequent order of Commissioner confirming the order. 2. Sri Audh Narain Singh, who shall be referred to hereinafter as the respondent, was appointed as a tahvildar in the district of Azamgarh in the year 1949. He worked in the Cash. Department of the Government Treasury of the district-According to him, though he had been employed through the Government Treasurer, Sri Dhanpat Singh Tandon, his pay and emoluments were paid by the State Government and his appointment, removal, dismissal and other conditions of service were also under the direction and control of the Collector of the district. In April 1956 he was working as tahvildar in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1961)IILLJ717All
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. The petitioner R.S. Sharma has been convicted under Section 80 of the Factories Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Rule 110 of the rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the rules) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. He filed a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge who refused to make a reference to this Court and rejected the application. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision application in this Court under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, which came up for hearing before a learned single Judge. On a reference being made by him to a larger Bench, the matter has come before us. The only submission that has been made on behalf of the petitioner before us is that the complaint on the basis of which he has been convicted was barred by limitation.2. The accident giving rise to this reference and in which one Zile Singh was the victim occurred on 19 September 1957. The matter was reported to the Inspector of Factories...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1962CriLJ251
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. The petitioner R.S. Sharma has been convicted under Section 80 of the Factories Act (herein-after referred to as the Act) and Rule 110 of the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the rules) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. He filed a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge who refused to make a reference to this Court and rejected the application. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision application in this Court under Section 439 Cri.P.C. which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge. On a reference being made by him to a larger Bench the matter has come before us. The only submission that has been made on behalf of the petitioner before us is that the complaint on the basis of which he has been convicted was barred by limitation.2. The accident giving rise to this reference and in which one Zile Singh was the victim occurred on the 19th of September 1957. The matter was reported to the Inspector of Factories (here...
Tag this Judgment!