Allahabad Court September 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.
Kailash Nath Bhargava Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. and V.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR928(All)
B. UPADHYA J. - I have had the advantage of reading the order proposed by my learned brother, but I regret I am unable to agree with him.The facts of the case have been clearly set out by my learned brother and it is unnecessary to repeat them. The answer to both the questions referred to depends, to my mind, on the single question as to whether the Income-tax Officer must necessarily make an assessment under section 23 after passing an order under section 25A(1) of the Income-tax Act. The contention raised by learned counsel for the assessee relating to the apportionment of the tax on the income of the erstwhile family between the two separated groups does not appear to have any force and I agree with my learned brother when he says that having regard to the language of the statute the apportionment has to be made according to the portion of the joint family property allotted to each separated member. I agree that there is nothing in the statute to support the argument that in decidin...
Official Liquidator Vs. Mathura Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All55
ORDERA.P. Srivastava, J.1. This is an application under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act of 1913.The Vijai Lakshmi Sugar Mills was a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 in the year 1946. It had an authorised capital of Rs. 15,00,000/- divided into 15,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 100/- each. The issued capital was, however, only Rs. 60,000/-divided into 600 shares of Rs. 100/- each. The company had only three share-holders, viz. Seth Mathura Prasad, Seth Ladli Prasad and Seth Radhey Lal. All these three share-holders were the directors of the company. The company had been incorporated for the purpose of taking over as a running concern a sugar mill which was at that time carrying on the business of sugar manufacture in the name of Vijai Sugar Corporation Ltd. at Doiwala in the district of Dehra Dun. After being incorporated the company purchased and took over all the assets of the Vijai Sugar Corporation Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 11,15,00...
Piara Singh Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All19; 1963CriLJ30
Asthana, J.1. The appellant Piara Singh stands convicted for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C., and has been sentenced to life imprisonment by the first Additional Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur. He has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence.2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Karnail Singh, a resident of village Chathia, police station Kuthar, district Shahjahanpur, on 23-8-1960 called accused Piara Singh along with some others for ploughing the field of one Dalip Singh in the village. At about 4 p.m. after ploughing operations had finished, the accused along with other friends, named Surendra Singh, Sant Singh of village Chathia, Girja Singh of village Rampur and another Karnail Singh resident of a village which lay across the river who all had ploughed Dalip Singh's field collected at the house of Karnail J. Singh deceased. The prosecution story further la that Karnail Singh deceased was resting on a cot under a chappar, south of his house, while the accus...
Sri A.C. Agrawal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All436
M.C. Desai C.J. 1. This is an application by a plaintiff for revision of an order of the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr, dismissing his application to sue as a pauper under Order XXXIII, Rule 1, C. P. C. The application came up for hearing before Upadhya, J. who being of the view that certain observations made by a Bench of this Court in Mohd. Baksh v. Khair-un-nisa, 1944 All LJ 366 required reconsideration referred the case to a Bench.2. The facts, about which there is no dispute, in this case are that on 19-12-1956 the applicant sold his house, which was his only property, to his son-in-law and on 22-4-1957 filed an application to sue the Union of India as a pauper. His application was opposed by the District Government Counsel, who also represented the Union of India. The learned Civil Judge made an enquiry into the alleged pauperism on July 20, 1957, discovered that in the schedule of property the applicant had not mentioned a sum of Rs. 50/- deposited by him and his wife jointly in a ce...
Daulat Ram Sawhney Vs. Trilokinath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All147
V. Bhargava, J.1. In this second appeal the following two questions have been referred by a Division Bench for the opinion of this Full Bench :'1. Whether there can be a valid and enforceable agreement of letting out an accommodation and/or fixation of rent in respect of it before an allotment order is passed in respect of the said accommodation under the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act? 2. Is the agreement so far as the fixation of rent is concerned valid in the circumstances of the present case?' 2. The facts found by the first appellate court show that, in the accommodation in question which belonged to the respondent-landlord, there were some earlier tenants against whom the respondent obtained a decree for ejectment. That decree was executed. On, 20th March 1950 in connection with the execution proceedings which were going on arising out of that suit an agreement was arrived at between the appellant and the respondent which was in the following...
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribuna ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All240; [1962(4)FLR487]
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. The petitioner Messrs. Jaswant Sugar Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) is a limited liability company and carried on business of manufacture and sale of sugar. On 1st October, 1958, the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Industrial Relations), U. P., referred the following matter of dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, U. P., Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) for adjudication :'Whether the designation and/or wages of the workmen appearing in the annexure need any revision? If so, from what date and with what details?'The Tribunal made its award on 30th April, 1959, and the same was published in the U. P. Gazette on 3rd June, 1959. By means of this petition the award mentioned above has been challenged by the petitioner.2. Under the provisions of Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the power to make a reference has been given to the State Government. That power can, however, be delega...
Sultanul Zaman Vs. Hamid UddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All361
ORDERMithan Lal, J.1. This civil revision filed by the defendant arisesout of the following circumstances.2. The plaintiffs brought a suit for partition of certain agricultural plots including a grove. The suit wasdecreed by the Munsif. A preliminary decree was passed and then the record was sent to the revenue court for preparation of the partition scheme. Thereafter an appeal was preferred by the defendant and the appellate Court modified the preliminary decree. On receipt of the partition scheme from the revenue Court the learned Munsif passed another order sending back the papers to the Revenue Court for the preparation of a fresh partition scheme according to the amended decree. A fresh partition scheme was received from the Revenue Court but no notice of it was given to the defendant or his counsel, and the learned Munsif passed a final decree in terms of thefresh partition scheme on 13-8-1957.3. An application was made by the defendant under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. for the sett...
Bhagwan Das Vs. Gomti Bai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All619
Srivastava, J.1. The short question raised by this execution first appeal is whether simultaneous execution is permissible in two courts, one being the Court to which the decree has been transferred for execution under Section 39 Civil Procedure Code and the other being the Original Court which passed the decree.2. The facts are that the decree-holder having obtained his decred got it transferred to a Court in Gwalior and put in an application for execution there. Before a certificate could be sent by the Gwalior Court, he put in a second execution application in the Court which had passed the decree and wanted to proceed against some property of the judgment-debtor situated within the jurisdiction of that Court. Objection was taken to the second application on the ground that it was not maintainable in law. Relying on the case of Makkhan Lal v. Mst. Bhagwana Kuer : AIR1936All655 , the learned Civil Judge rejected the objection. His order is being questioned by the present appeal.3. Th...
Suraj Bhan Hari Shanker Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All16; [1962]13STC409(All)
Brijlal Gupta, J. 1. These are two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. They raise common points and can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. 2. By means of these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the levy of sales tax on their turnover of Gur in the assessment year 1956-57. Gur was exempt from the levy of sales tax under Section 4 of that Act prior to the 1st of April 1956. The State legislature by U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act XIX of 1955 deleted Gur from Section 4 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. The effect of deletion of Gur from that section was that Gur no longer remained an exempted commodity and became liable to tax. Accordingly by the impugned assessment orders, tax was levied in respect of the turnover of Gur also as stated above. 3. Two points have been raised before me in these writ petitions by Mr. Misra learned counsel for the petitioners. The first point taken by learned counsel is that Gur was an essential commodity as declared by...
Ganga Singh and anr. Vs. Santosh Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All194
S.S. Dhavan. J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against concurrent decisions of the courts below dismissing their suit for the specific performance of a contract for the reconveyance of certain plots of land to them. The original parties to the contract are not principal parties in the suit and it is, therefore, necessary to relate the facts of the case in some detail. On 22-1-1936 the plaintiffs' ancestors Chaudhry Madho Singh and Chaudhry Kanwaj Singh entered into a transaction of sale and agreement to resell by means of two registered documents with four persons, Tola Ram, Gangi Mak, Ram Chandra and Snyamlal. By the first deed Madho Singh and Kanwal Singh sold certain plots of land to the vendees for Rs. 2500/- and by the second the vendees agreed to reconvey the same property to the vendors on condition that they received back the sale price within ten years. The four vendees are relations, Ram Chandra and Shyam Lal being brothers and the other two their uncles. Shyam Lal be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »