Allahabad Court November 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.
Sheonath Prasad Motilal Vs. Income-tax Officer, D-ward, Varanasi.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR493(All)
This is petitioner under article 226 of the Constitution.The prayer contained in the writ petition is that an order of the Income-tax Officer dated March 14, 1961, under rule 6B of the rules under the Income-tax Act may be quashed.The material facts are that the petitioner firm was constituted of three partners under an oral agreement on June 7, 1957. The firm commenced business with effect from that date and continued to carry on business. An instrument of partnership was brought into existence on June 23, 1958. The instrument retrospectively governed the terms and conditions of partnership which, as already stated above, started functioning from June 7, 1957. An application for registration of the firm was made in due course for the assessment year 1958-59 and registration under section 26A was granted to the firm by order dated November 29, 1958. Subsequently, on March 16, 1961, registration was renewed for the assessment year 1959-60 and for 1960-61, a day earlier on March 15, 1961...
S. Gyani Ram and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer, A. Ward, Firozabad.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR472(All)
This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution.The prayer contained in the petition is that notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act in respect of the assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 may be quashed. There is a further prayer that proceedings in consequence of the said notices may also be quashed and the Income-tax Officer be prohibited for proceedings further in the matter.The material facts are that the petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of ornamentation of glass bangles and of selling them. One Raj Nath was in the employment of the firm for two years ending October 18, 1952, as a salesman and as a Munim. He left the service of the firm with effect from that date and entered the employment of another concern, Messrs. Ganga Glass Works, Firozabad. Subsequently, Raj Nath carried on his own business. It is alleged that the business was of purchase of bangles in Firozabad and of sale of the same in Bangalore, Mysore and others States. T...
indra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All70
ORDERMithan Lal, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is a case in which the petitioner lost his holdall while travelling by a roadways bus from Lucknow to Kanpur. The holdall had not been booked but it was within the free allowance of the luggage and was stored on the roof of the bus by the Conductor. As the holdall was missing at Unnao a report was lodged and thereafter the suit was filed. The suit has been dismissed by the learned Judge Small Causes, Kanpur on the ground that it is not a case of bailment, and further that even in cases where the luggage is booked by the roadways, there is a clause in the receipt that the roadways shall not be responsible for the loss of such goods.2. The main contention of the learned counsel is that when the U. P. Roadways carries passengers and allows a free allowance for certain luggage, there is an implied contract between the passenger and the Roadways to carry the passenger as well as the luggage. There will thus be a case of ...
Abdul Qavi Khan Vs. God Almighty Through Asaf Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All364
Manchanda, J. 1. These two special appeals are against the common order of a learned Single Judge dismissing the appeals filed by the plaintiff, Abdul Qavi Khan and defendant No. 5 Sehat Ali Khan and for the sake of convenience they are disposed of by a common judgment. L.p.A. no. 50 of 1951 is by the plaintiff and L.P.A. No. 80 of 1956 is by the defendant No. 5. 2. In order to appreciate the points involved the material facts may be stated. The relationship of the parties will be clear from the following genealogical table: NASIR KHAN ___________________________________________|______________________________________ | | | | |Abdul Qavi Khan Mohd. Shafi Khan Smt. Matluban Smt. Maqbul Unnisa= Smt. Mumtaz Begam= (Plaintiff) (Defdt. 2) (Defdt. 3) Dr. Niaz Ali Khan Mohd. Wali Khan (Issueless) (Brother of Dr. Niaz Ali Khan) ____________________|_____ | | Sehat Ali Khan (Defdt. 5) Two daughters.3. The aforesaid table shows that the plaintiff is the brother of Smt. Maqbul-Unnisa, hereinafter ...
Ghulam Haqqani Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All413
Mukerji, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading my brother's opinion and I may, with respect, say that I am in general agreement with his opinion. I agree that this appeal must fail and that the parties should bear their own costs of the appeal.2. Since the appeal raised some interesting questions for determination I thought it desirable to, very briefly, indicate' my own views on some of the questions falling for determination.3. The facts and the important controversies arising on those facts have been fully set out in my learned, brothers' judgment and hence I content myself with dealing specifically with only two questions; first, whether the Board of High School and Intermediate Education which was established by the Intermediate Education, Act, 1921 (U. P. Act II of 1921) was a corporate body with all the privileges and liabilities of such a body, or whether the Board of High. School and Intermediate Education was merely a statutory body with no different existence from being a...
Hulas Rai Baijnath Vs. K.B. Bass and Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All368
Desai, C.J.1. I agree with my brother Ramabhadran that this application should be dismissed with costs.2. The opposite party's application for withdrawal of the suit was opposed by the applicant, who contended before the trial Court that the application be dismissed and that a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts be passed on its paying the Court-fee. The application of the opposite party was a simple application withdrawing the suit without seeking permission to file a fresh suit. It had the absolute right to withdraw the suit at any time; it did not stand in need of any leave of the Court for withdrawing. The question of the leave of the Court would have arisen only if it had asked for leave to file a fresh suit. The petitioner could not resist the withdrawal of the suit and the Court could not compel the opposite party to continue it. I do not understand what could be the opposite party's 'game' in withdrawing the suit even if it had been pending for a long time and the peti...
Sarjudei Vs. Rampati Kunwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All503
Desai, C.J. 1. In this and connected first Appeals, which are pending in this court since 1950 or 1951 and arise out of suits instituted in 1948 or there about, this Court has on its own motion issued a notice calling upon the parties to the appeals to show cause why they should not be transferred by it under Section 24, C. P. C. to the courts of the District Judges concerned for disposal. The subject-matter of appeal in each of the appeals is valued at more than Rs. 5,000/- and less than Rs. 10,000/-. The appeals were instituted in this court because under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, Section 21(1)(b), as it was in force on the dates of the institution, they lay in this Court end not in the courts of the District Judges. With effect from 30-11-1954, Section 21(1)(b) has been amended by the U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act (No. XXIV of 1954), vide serial No. 4 of the Schedule, and the limit to the value of the original suit in which a decree appealable...
Ram Bilas Radhey Sham Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Iii, Kanpur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All446
ORDERBrijlal Gupta, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The prayer contained in the petition is that two ex parte assessment orders dated 31-12-1960 passed against the petitioner under Section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1956-57 may be quashed.3. The facts giving rise to the petition are that the petitioner firm started functioning from 4-9-1953. The petitioner has alleged that a dissolution of the firm took place on 2-11-1956. An intimation of the fact of dissolution was given to the Sales Tax Officer by communication dated 2-11-1956. Despite this the petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the months, of November and December 1956 and January and February 1957, This was a provisional assessment order. An appeal was taken against this order. The Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax, who by order dated 26-8-1957 allowed the appeal, observed in the appellate order as follows:'It was said in arguments that the firm was dissolved on 2-11-5...
Ram Singh Khanna Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All447
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order of our brother Mathur dated 1-10-1959 dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant.2. The appellant was the President of the Municipal Board of Bareilly. A motion of non-confidence was moved against him in a meeting of the Board held on 30-5-1959. The appellant moved the writ petition mentioned above in thisCourt. After the petition was dismissed on 1stOctober, 1959, the appellant submitted his resignation. The State Government declared a casual vacancy and an election was held on 20th of December, 1959. There were two contestants, namely, the appellant and Sri L. D. Singhal. Sri Singhal having secured a larger number of votes was declared elected. It is the common case of the parties that he has accepted office and is functioning as the President of the Municipal Board of Bareilly. Under these circumstances it appears to us that this special appeal has got to be dismissed.In Sohan Lal v. Union of I...
Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika Vs. Sardar Karamjeet Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All174
R.A. Misra, J. 1. The question referred to this Bench for answer was; 'Whether a suit based on a contract is governed by Section 97 of the Town Improvement Act or it is governed by the general law of limitation,' After considering the circumstances of the case, and in agreement with the learned counsel for the parties, we have re-drafted the question and now it reads: 'Is a suit by a bidder at an auction held by the Lucknow Improvement Trust for selling land in connection with a scheme framed by it under the Town Improvement Trust Act, for refund of one-fourth price deposited by him on his bid being accepted, but which was subsequently forfeited by the Trust oh account of his failure to pay the. balance within the prescribed time, a suit in respect of an act purporting to be done by the Trust under the Act?' 2. The brief facts of the case in which the question has arisen are that on 5th December, 1947, the Lucknow Improvement Trust -held an auction sale of the lease-hold rights of plot...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »