Allahabad Court October 1961 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.
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR417(All)
This is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution.The prayer contained in the petition is that a writ of prohibition may be issued restraining the assessing authority, namely, the Additional Collector, Meerut, from proceeding to assess the petitioner for agriculture income-tax for the assessment year 1954-55 in accordance with section 6(2)(b), and for a writ of mandamus requiring the said assessing authority to assess the petitioner for agricultural income-tax for the aforesaid with the provisions of section 6(2)(a) of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the assessing authority dated November 17, 1959, and the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Revision Board dated January 27, 1960.The material facts lie in a narrow ambit. On November 27, 1959, the petitioner filed a return of its agricultural income for the previous year 1953-54 (1361F) and with its return expressed its option in A.I.T.Fo...
Jagan and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ641
S.D. Singh, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by four persons, Jagan Bhuwali, Ram Lal and Sheo Nath. All of them have been convicted Under Section 323 or Section 323 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment thereunder for having caused simple hurt to one Lallu. Bhuwali was charged Under Section 302 and has been convicted under that provision and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The other three appellants Jagan, Ram Lal and Sheo Nath were charged Under Section 302 read with Section 34, but were convicted Under Section 325 read with Section 34 and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment each for the injuries which were caused to Ram Prasad deceased. '2. The incident giving rise to the case against the four appellants took place at about noon on 4th April, i960, in village Khidirpur within the jurisdiction of P. S. Nawabganj, Report about the incident was made at the police station at 2.45 P. M., the distance between the police s...
Messrs. Haji Mohd. Khalil Mohd. Farooq Vs. Income Tax Officer, Azamgar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR458(All)
This is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution.The prayers contained in this petition are that in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, dated November 16, 1955, in Appeals Nos. 65/101, 66/103, 69/105 and 60/102, the following words may be deleted 'provided the application for registration is in order'. There is a further prayer that a writ of certiorari may be issued quashing the order dated January 13, 1956, passed by the Income-tax Officer, Azamgarh, and the order dated January 21, 1957, passed in appeals by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Varanasi, refusing registration and renewal of registration of the firm of which the petitioner is a partner for the years, 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1955-56.The facts giving rise to the petition are not in controversy because no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The facts are that under an instrument of partnership dated December 19, 1949, the f...
Hira Prasad Vs. Beni Madho
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All109
ORDERMithan Lal, J. 1. These three civil revisions filed by the defendant arise out of the same judgment of the learned Additional Dist. Judge of Allahabad who in revision upset the findings of the judge, small cause court, on the ground that he had not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him correctly and the findings were quite perverse.2. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in all these cases is that the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to substitute his own judgment and to go into questions of fact. This argument has no force in a case where the findings of the judge, small cause court, have been found to be perverse and not in accordance with law. It may be ordinarily correct that a judge sitting in revision cannot act like an appellate court and cannot reassess, the evidence once assessed by the small cause court; but if the assessment of the evidence is wrong or the approach is wrong or the finding is perverse, the judge sitting in revisi...
Lal Chand Vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All378
Desai, C.J.1. I agree with my brother Ramabhadran that the Tribunal established under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act (No. 70 of 1951) is not a court subordinate to this Court within the meaning of Section 115, C. P. C. InBraj Nandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain : 1956CriLJ156 , the Supreme Court has held that prima facie, a subordinate court within the meaning of Section 115 means a court subordinate to the High Court in the hierarchy of courts. The Tribunal, as such, is not a court in the hierarchy of courts. The Legislature; went out of its way to use the word 'Tribunal'. Although the powers of the Tribunal were conferred upon a Civil Judge, it was not satisfied with conferring jurisdiction under the Act upon the Civil Judge having territorial jurisdiction, but went out of its way to constitute a Tribunal, though to be presided over by a Civil Judge. The provisions of the Act show that it was not the intention of the Legislature that the Civil Judge should exercise the jurisdi...
Krishna Raj Trading Corporation Vs. Ram Saran Dass and Brothers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All374
Srivastava, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal and raises an important question relating to execution of decrees.2. A compromise was arrived at in this case between the parties which provided:'That the plaintiff and the defendants have arrived at a compromise and accordingly they hereby pray that the suit be decreed with full costs (Contested) and interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.'A decree was passed in terms of this compromise. The decree-holder got the decree transferred for execution to another Court and applied for execution. The judgment-debtor a firm then put in anobjection in which it put forward a pre-decreeagreement and urged that in view of that agreement it was not open, to the decree-holder to getthe decree executed. According to the judgment-debtor the decree had been passed in pursuanceof an agreement the terms of which were as follows : ''A That the parties should state before Court that they have arrived at a compromise and a de...
J.P. Ojha Vs. Firm R.R. Tandan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All485
Mithan Lal, J.1. This civil revision filed by the plaintiff arises out of an order passed by the learned District Judge, Aligarh, holding that the revision was not properly presented.2. The facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the Judge Small Cause Court, Aligarh, for recovery of Rs. 1,000/-. The suit was partly decreed and thereafter a revision was filed by the same counsel who had filed the suit without filing a fresh vakalatnama. The counsel made a note on the petition of revision that his vakalatnama was already on record in the original suit. The learned Judge passed an order that the revision was not properly presented because the vakalatnama filed in the lower court does not provide an 'express right' to the learned counsel to file a revision on behalf of the applicant and Order III Rule 4 (3) does not confer such a right. This order passed by thelearned Judge in this case and several other cases, which are all fixed for hearing today, is totally erroneous.3...
Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co., Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC1031(All)
Brijlal Gupta, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The prayer contained in the petition is, that a writ of mandamus may be issued, requiring the respondent to refund to the petitioner the sales tax realized by the petitioner in excess of three pies per rupee, on sale by it, of dhotis, saris, chadars, towels, canvas, rags and fents during the assessment years 1948-49 to 1955-56- Assessment orders in respect of these years were passed on 5th October, 1950, 26th April, 1956, 2nd January, 1957, 19th September, 1959, 20th August, 1955, 6th September, 1957, 12th November, 1956, and 21st May, 1958, respectively. Some of these orders were passed on appeal, or on re-assessment, under appellate orders of remand. There is also a prayer that the said assessment orders be quashed in so far as they impose a tax in excess of three pies per rupee in respect of the articles mentioned above. The writ petition was filed on 21st October, 1959.3. The point raised in the wr...
Jagdatt Singh and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All606
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. This case has come to us on a reference made by our brother Oak by his order dated 29-1-1958. The petitioners are bhumidars of certain plots of land situate in village Naithi, pargana Mohammadabad, district Azamgarh. In respect of those plots proceedings for acquisition have been started under the provisions of the Acquisition of Property (Flood Relief) Temporary Powers Act (U. P. Act No. XXXIX of 1948). It is not necessary to narrate all the facts mentioned in the petition, the affidavit filed in support of it, the counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit, because the point raised before us is a short one and is one essentially of law. The prayer in the petition is that a writof mandamus be issued directing the respondent No. 2, the Requisition Officer of Flood Relief, to cancel his order dated 23-3-1956 acquiring the plots in dispute. 2. The only submission that has been made before us is that inasmuch as the first proviso to Section 9(1) of the Acquisition ...
Harish Chand Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All307
Srivastava, J.This revision application has come to us on a reference made by Mr. Justice V.D. Bhargava. The question involved is a short one. The plaintiff is the applicant. He filed a suit in the Small Cause Court at Aligarh against the Union of India claiming Rs. 254/10/- on account of two consignments which had been booked by the plaintiff but one of them had not been delivered at all and there was short delivery in respect of the other. Before filing the suit, the applicant served a notice under Section 80, C. P. C. The two consignments in dispute had been booked as per railway receipt Nos. 912866 and 569967. The latter was booked for Bangalore. The former had originally been booked from Aligarh to Koka but had been rebocked from Koka to Aligarh. The consignment relating to railway receipt No. 912869 is no longer in dispute. In respect of the other consignment to which railway receipt No. 569976 related, the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed on the ground that the notice served ...