Allahabad Court March 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.
Smt. Saida Begam Vs. Sabir Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All9
ORDERR.A. Misra, J. 1. The points raised for decision in both these revision petitions are the same. It will, therefore, be convenient to dispose of them by one judgment.2. Smt. Saida Begam, wife of Sri Hamid Ali Siddiki, Advocate, Bara Banki, applicant, obtained two decrees against her former husband Thakur Mohammad Umar, Taluqdar of Tipreha estate. One was a decree for her maintenance and the other for her dower debt, due from Thakur Mohammad Umar. Thakur Mohammad Umar died on the 13th October, 1949, and according to the decree-holder, superintendence of the estate of Tipreha, as also of the other assets of the deceased Thakur Mohammad Umar, was assumed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bahraich, as Manager, Court of Wards.3. Smt. Saida Begam applied for execution of her decrees.4. In execution application No. 11 of 1953, which related to her maintenance decree, she got attached a sum of Rs. 13,682/7/- from the- possession of the Deputy Commissioner, Bahraich, out of the assets of the dece...
Hardeya Devi Vs. Fiddan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All125
Mithan Lal, J. 1. This second appeal filed by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for a declaration that she was the owner of one-fourth share in the house in dispute and she was also entitled to reside in the house in dispute. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the house in dispute belonged to Chheda Lal and after his death it went to his son Budhsen and his three grandsons Ram Chander, Ram Bharosey and Babu Ram. Budhsen and his three sons borrowed money from the firm of Moti Ram Laxmi Narain, respondent No. 2. Two decrees were obtained and in execution of those decrees the house was attached. After attachment but before the sale Budhsen died and his widow, who now claims to be the legal representative of the one-fourth share of the house, was not brought on record and the execution continued against the three judgment-debtors representing themselves and as the legal representatives of Budhsen and the house was ultimately sold and was purchased by Fiddan, respondent No. 1. 3. T...
Municipal Board Vs. Bhim Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All450
D.S. Mathur, J.1. This order governs Criminal Revisions Nos. 1502 to 1505 of 1960 by the Municipal Board of Bijnor against the judgments of Sri Sachidanand, Assistant Sessions Judge, Bijnor whereby Criminal Appeals preferred by Bhim Singh, Baldeo Singh Kishore and Kailash Chandra alias Munnoo were allowed. The Criminal Revisions were presented, before me as Application Judge on 6-9-1960 with office reports dated 31-8-1960. The office did not make a note that the revisions were being presented in Court directly without first of all approaching the Sessions Judge. This fact was also not brought to the notice of the Application Judge, but the facts as detailed in the hearing of the revisions would have indicated that no revision had been made before the Sessions Judge and the applicant was challenging the order of discharge directly before the High Court, It cannot, therefore, be said that the applicant was guilty of, or was in any way responsible for concealment of facts.The fact, howeve...
Dalsukh Rai Jaidayal in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1961
Reported in: [1962]44ITR417(All)
[The matter originally came before Bhargava and Upadhya who on May 20, 1960, delivered the following judgments.]BHARGAVA J. - The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for opinion of this court is :'Whether on the facts of the case, the assessee family is entitled, in respect of its Benaras business, to exemption from tax under section 25(4) of the Income-tax Act for the period from October 19, 1942, to October 7, 1943 ?'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family which was carrying on business at Banners in the name of Dalsukh Rai Jai Dayal. This Hindu undivided family was succeeded by a partnership firm in carrying on that Banaras business with effect from October 8, 1943, and the question that arose was as to the relief to which the assessee family became entitled under section 25(4) of the Income-tax Act. This question fell for decision in the proceedings for assessment for the assessment year 1944-45. The previous year of the assessee corresponding to this assessment...
Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1961
Reported in: [1961]43ITR254(All)
UPADHYA J. - The question referred for the opinion of this court is :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the receipts of the assessee by the sale of loom hours amounting to Rs. 53,460 and Rs. 1,85,230 in the assessment years 1949-51 respectively were revenue receipts liable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act ?'The assessee, Messrs. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur, is assessed to tax in the status of a company. This company runs a jute mill and is a member of the Jute Mills Association, which is an association of jute mills formed with several objects including the protection of the jute mills and the defence of the trade of its members and in that behalf to impose restrictions, conditions and to adjust the production of the signatories. With this object in view the members of the association entered into an agreement dated January 9, 1932, called 'the First Working Time Agreement'. That agreement was to expire on December 11, 1944. The members the...
Ram NaraIn Vs. Ram Swarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All108
ORDERJ.D. Sharma, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order dated the 9th May 1959 of the learned Second Additional Civil Judge, Agra.2. The applicant brought suit No. 69 of 1957 in the court of the Second Additional Civil Judge, Agra, on the allegations that he was the owner of a Mercedez-Benz truck which he transferred to the defendants under a hire-purchase agreement which provided for the payment of the price in 12 instalments of Rs. 1,900/- each. Only five instalments were paid. In default the plaintiff was entitled to take back the truck, and by mutual agreement the truck was taken back by the plaintiff on the 10th April 1957. The plaintiff claimed a declaration that he was the owner and in rightful possession of the truck and for the recovery of the unpaid instalments.3. The defendants to the above suit (the opposite parties) brought suit No. 48 of 1958 in the same court on the allegations that they had purchased the truck from the defendant i.e., the applicant) a...
Avinash Chandra Sanjar Vs. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1961
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ7All
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed toy Avinash Chandra Sanjar, a ticket collector employed by the Central Railway, challenging the legality of an order passed by the Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Jhansi, removing Mm from service on the ground of incivility to a travelling passenger.2. The facts are these. An incident occurred at Mahoba railway station on 28 May 1958 immediately after the arrival of the 523 Down passenger train from Jhansi on its way to Manikpur. The persona involved were Sri M.L. Dwivedi, a Member of Parliament and another person whose identity was never established but who is alleged by the respondent railway to be Avinash Chandra Sanjar himself. According to an eye-witness, who was the ticket collector on duty at the exit gate, passengers started passing through that gate soon after the arrival of the train at Mahoba. A group of five or six passengers went through the gate but had no tickets. The ticket coll...
L. Jugal Kishore Vs. Wealth Tax Officer Special Circle, 'C' Ward Kanpu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1961
Reported in: AIR1961All487; [1962]44ITR94(All)
Gurtu, J. 1. In this petition we are concerned with the vires of the Wealth Tax Act (Act XXVII of 1957) so far as it relates to the levy of wealth tax on Hindu undivided families. The petitioner claims that Section 3 of the Wealth Tax Act is ultra vires of the Union Parliament in so far as it authorised the levy of wealth tax on the net wealth of a Hindu undivided family. 2. By Section 3 of the Act there is to be charged for every financial year commencing on and from the 1st day of April, 1957, a tax (hereinafter referred to as wealth-tax) in respect of the net wealth on the corresponding valuation date of every individual, Hindu undivided family and company at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule. The petitioner's case is that to the extent the Union Parliament has provided for the levy of wealth tax on Hindu undivided families as units the legislation is beyond its power and this contention is supported with reference to the language of entry No. 86 in List 1 of the 7th Sched...
Shakila Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1961
Reported in: AIR1961All633; 1961CriLJ754
Uniyal, J.1. The question raised in this reference is 'whether a magistrate is competent to file a complaint against a person suspected of having committed an offence under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act (104 of 1956), hereinafter referred to as the Act.'2. The facts briefly stated are that at about 9 p.m. on the 18th March 1959, Sri B. N. Rai, a Magistrate of the 1st Glass, Kanpur, found the applicant soliciting persons by words, gestures and wilful exposure of her person, for the purpose of prostitution. He placed her under arrest and filed a complaint for her prosecution under Section 8 of the Act. An objection was made by the applicant in court against her prosecution challenging the validity of the complaint on the ground that she could only have been prosecuted on a charge sheet submitted by a 'special police officer', appointed under the Act and not on a complaint filed by the Magistrate. Her objection was overruled by the trial court and the Additiona...
Baru Mal JaIn and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All61
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. It is not necessary to narrate all the allegations made in the affidavit, the counter-affidavit, the supplementary affidavit and the rejoinder-affidavit filed in this case. For the purposes, of the decision of this petition the following admitted facts alone are material:-2. The petitioners were the owners of certain plots of land measuring 5 bighas and 5 biswas situated in the Civil Lines of the town of Muzaffarnagar. On the request of the respondent No. 4 the District Exhibition Committee, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter called the Committee), proceedings for acquiring the plots mentioned above were started and notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were issued, and proceedings for payment of compensation were also started. The Land Acquisition Officer, who in this particular case is not the Collector and District Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar but a Deputy Collector, held an enquiry under Section 11 of the Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »