Allahabad Court December 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.
Rahmat Ullah Vs. Ahsan Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All117
S.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal against the concurrent decisions of the courts below decreeing the plaintiff-respondents' suit for possession of a plot of land. The plaintiff complained that the defendant had encroached on his plot after demolishing a daul (slightly raised water channel) which formed the boundary between the plaintiffs' and defendant's land. The defendant contested the suit and denied that the land belonged to the plaintiffs. Both the courts below have believed the plaintiffs' story and found that the land in suit belongs to the plaintiffs and the defendant illegally occupied it. The defendant has now come to this Court in second appeal.2 Mr. N. Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant urged the following point in support of this appeal. First, he tried to argue that the Civil court had no jurisdiction to try this suit. He conceded that the defendant had not raised any objection against the jurisdiction of the courts and on the contrary he had ad...
Chandi Prasad Pathak Vs. Sadanand Pathak and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All577
Srivastava, J.1. These are two connected Special Appeals that arise out of execution matters. They involve common points and can therefore be disposed of together.2. The appellant is the decree-holder. He obtained decree No. 2331 of 1933 from the Court of the Judge Small Causes at Gorakhpur on the 30th of August, 1933. Another decree No. 1142 of 1933 had also been obtained by him from the same Court. This latter decree had been transferred for execution to the Munsif of Bansgaon and an execution application in respect of it was pending in that Court. The decree NO. 2331 of 1933 was also transferred to the Court of the Munsif of Bansgaon and an application to execute it was filed in that Court. On the 17th of September, 1941, the decree-holder made a statement before the Munsif of Bansgaon that his execution application in respect of decree No. 1142 of 1933 be struck off though attachment of the attached properties may continue. The execution application was accordingly struck off and i...
Ram Chandra Pandey Vs. Maheshwari Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All480
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal against the concurrent decisions of the courts below decreeing the plaintiff-respondents' claim for Rs. 200/- as compensation for the removal of a tree belonging to the plaintiffs. It raises an interesting question of law--namely whether the suit for the recovery of damages for a tree alleged to have been dishonestly removed by the defendant from the plaintiffs' land is not excepted from the jurisdiction of the court of small causes under Clause (35) (ii) of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act because the defendant was acquitted by a competent criminal court on the finding that the tree belonged to him. The plaintiffs and the defendant are residents of the same village and their plots of land adjoin. The plaintiffs, alleged that the tree stood on their plot and they felled it but the defendant dishonestly removed it with the intention of stealing it and misappropriated the timber. He alleged that he filed a ...
Kays Construction Company Vs. the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC302(All)
Brijlal Gupta, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The prayer contained in the petition is that a writ of certiorari may be issued quashing the order of the Sales Tax Officer dated 28th March, 1960, and of the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax dated 27th July, 1961.2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner is a contractor who took a contract from the North Eastern Railway to build a certain number of passenger bogies for the railway. The underframes were to be supplied by the railway and the property in the frames was always to remain in the railway The superstructure over these underframes was to be constructed by the petitioner. The superstructure was to be raised according to certain specifications. The work was to be completed within a certain time and it was provided in the contract which is an annexure to the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the rate at which the contractor was to be paid for the work will be Rs....
Brij Gopal Bhatia Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All445
Mithan Lal, J.1. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in this appeal against an order rejecting the application of the appellant under Order XXI, Rule 90, C. P. C 2. The appellant who is tenant of the accommodation under sale, filed an objection underOrder XXI, Rule 90, C. P. C. In that objection it was not suggested what injury or what substantial injury had been suffered by him as a result of the sale. The learned Civil Judge, Mathura, dismissed the objection firstly on the ground that it was not maintainable, as a tenant is not a person whose interests are affected by the sale, and secondly on the ground that no substantial injury having been alleged in the objection the objection was not maintainable. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.3. It has been contended in this appeal that the expression 'whose interests are affected by the sale' used in Order XXI, Rule 90 (1), C. P. C. is wide enough to include a tenant or a lessee of immovable prope...
Ram Bilas Kedar Nath Vs. the Income-tax Officer, Distt. Iii (i), Kanpu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All444; [1963]47ITR586(All)
Brijlal Gupta, J.:1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The prayer contained in the petition is that a writ of certiorari may be issued quashing the notice dated 28-3-1960 under Section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act.3. The facts jiving rise to the petition are that for the assessment year 1953-54 a notice under Section 22(2) was issued to the petitioner on 1-7-1953. Similarly for the assessment year 1954-55 a notice under that section was issued to the petitioner on 5-7-1954. Returns of income do not appear to have been filed in consequence of these notices. The cases for the two years were fixed for production of account books under Section 22(4) on 10-12-1955. For non-compliance with notices under Sections 22(2) and 22(4) assessments for the two years in question were completed under Section 23(4) on 10-12-1955. Subsequently loss returns were filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 1953-54 on 20-12-1955 and for the year 1954-55 on 21-2-1956. In due c...
Santamal Pitambar Prasad Vs. Income-tax Officer, Moradabad, and Others ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR562(All)
By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has objected to the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,156 levied as penal interest against the petitioner under section 18A(6) of the Income-tax Act in respect of the assessment year 1945-46.For that year an assessment order was made against the petitioner. As the law stood at that time, it was obligatory upon the Income-tax Officer to have levied the penal interest against an assessee in case the conditions under section 18A(6) were satisfied. It may be noted that the fifth provost that section was introduced by the amending Act of 1953 only with effect from April 1, 1952. Under the said fifth proviso and rule 48, it became optional and discretionary with the Income-tax Officer to levy or not to levy penal interest. Prior to that, however, and on the date on which the assessment order was passed in this case, there was no option or discretion with the Income-tax Officer notification and on January 27, 1950, served a notice...
Messrs. Raza Textiles Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Rampur.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR466(All)
This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution.The relief claimed in the petition is that a writ of certiorari may be issued quashing an order dated March 12, 1957, passed under section 18(3B) read with section 18(7) of the Income-tax Act.The facts lie within a narrow ambit. The petitioner entered into a contract with Messrs. Lababedi Textiles of Manchester for the supply of cloth. The deal was arranged through Messrs. Pioneer Consolidated Company (London) Ltd. The contract form is annexure 'A-1' to the affidavit filed in support of the petition. The buyers name as entered in the contract form is : The Lababedi Textiles Manchester, England, through the Pioneer Consolidated Company (London) Ltd. London. The rate at which cloth was to be supplied is mentioned in this contract form as follows : 19 1/2 pence less 2 1/2 per cent. commission payable to the Pioneer Consolidated Company (London) Ltd. It appears that in respect of the supply of cloth the commission payable to Messrs. ...
Ram Krishna Kapoor Vs. Behari Lal Ram Sahai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All44
ORDERMithan Lal, J. 1. This civil revision filed by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff is the auction purchaser of the house. The sale, took place as against defendant No, 2 who was the judgment-debtor on 16th September 1955. This sale was confirmed on 29th May 1957. During ail these years defendant No. 1 has remained in possession of the house as tenant at a rent of Rs. 55/- per mensem. The courts below have found that defendant No. 1 was liable only for a sum of Rs. 110/- because he had paid a sum of Rs. 825/- to defendant No. 2, Rs. 19578/- to the Income-tax Department and Rs. 82/8/- to Municipal Board and all these payments were bona fide payments. The suit was decreed against defendant No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 632/8/-only as the rent of the period prior to three years of the impleadment of defendant No. 2, that is, prior to 11th May 1956 was barred by limitation, it is against this finding that the present revision has been filed. 2. It...
Shakooran Bibi Vs. Income-tax Officer, A-ward, Meerut, and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR527(All)
This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution.It appears that, for recovery of income-tax dues against the husband of petitioner, two houses Nos. 77 and 77A, Bank Street, Meerut, are sought to be proceeded against. The petitioner has claimed the houses to belong to her under an oral gift in her favor by the husband. In order to make good this claim in the recovery proceedings the petitioner field objections before the Collector. The objections purported to be under Order XXI, rule 58, Civil Procedure Code. By order dated April 10, 1961, the objections were dismissed summarily by the Additional Collector, Merit, with the o] following observation :'The procedure prescribed for recovery of arrears of land revenue or these taxes or rates......... does not contemplate any enquiry by the Collector on the lines laid down under Order XXI, rule 58, Civil Procedure Code. I hold that the objection of the applicant is misconceived and cannot stand as such.'The Collector was clearly in e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »