Allahabad Court October 1962 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.
Ram Chandra Tripathi Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Dudhi Mirzapur and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All480
V. Bhargava, J. 1. This special appeal has been filed by a petitioner who moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for an order quashing a notification dated the 11th of March, 1961 issued by the State of U. P. under Section 38-B of the Indian Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended by the Indian Forest (U. P. Amendment) Act, 1956, and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Divisional Forest Officer and the Range Officer, to refrain from interfering with the appellant's right of felling and carrying away trees in the forest of which the appellant claimed to be a lessee. The relief was claimed principally on two grounds. The first ground was that Section 38-B of the Act was void as contravening the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution inasmuch as it laid down an unreasonable restriction on the right of the appellant to enjoy and hold his rights as lessee in the fores...
Ayub Hasan Vs. Mt. Akhtari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All525
S.D. Singh, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by a husband whose suit for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed by both the courts below.2. The plaintiffs alleged in the first paragraph of the plaint that he was married to Akhtari, defendant No. 1, during her minority on 26th January, 1949, and that since then she has been submitting herself to her marital obligations. This allegation was denied by Akhtari as well as the other defendants in the suit. Since the plaintiff alleged that Akhlari was a minor at the time of her marriage, one might assume that in the absence of any other allegation to that effect, the plaintiff's case was that Akhtari was given in marriage by her guardian who was entitled under the law to do so.3. The suit was contested by the defendants. Their case was that Akhtari was never married to the plaintiff, nor was the alleged marriage ever consummated.4. It was brought out in the evidence of the plaintiff himself that Akhtari was not married by her brot...
Mrs. Panzy Fernandas Vs. Mrs. M.F. Queoros and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All153
N.U. Beg, J. 1. The sole question that arises before this Full Bench relates to the amount of court-fee payable on a memorandum of appeal filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act (Act XXXIX of 1925). The appeal arises out of a petition for letters of administration made under Section 278 of the said Act in respect of the estate of one I Mr. H. Johnson, who died on the 19th November, 1958. The petitioners were the sister and the brothers of the deceased. The petition was contested by Mrs. Panzy Fernandas, widow of the deceased. The District Judge, Lucknow, by his order dated the 7th November, 1959, allowed the petition, and ordered that letters of administration be granted to the petitioners on filing an administration bond with one surety as provided in Section 291 of the Indian Succession Act. Dissatisfied with the said order, the widow of the deceased, namely Mrs. Panzy Fernandas, filed the present appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act on the 2ist December...
Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. and V.P. Vs. Chandra Prakash Raiz.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1962
Reported in: [1964]53ITR366(All)
DESAI C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has referred under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act the following two questions for its opinion :'(1) Whether the starting of a business in an Indian State is a transaction within the meaning of section 10A ?(2) Whether in view of the provisions of the third proviso to section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act the Tribunal was justified in holding that section 10A does not apply to the case ?'The material facts, which give rise to the questions and are taken from the statement of the case, are these :The assessee is a wholesale dealer in cloth and carries on the business at its head office, Farrukhabad, and a branch officer at Ahmedabad. In 1940 the Excess Profits Tax Act was enacted to tax excessive profits made by businessmen on account of the prevalence of the war. The material provisions are as follows :Under section 2(5) all businesses to which the Act applies, carried on by the same person, is to be treated as one ...
Jwala Mohan and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All161; 1963CriLJ404
Desai, C.J.1. The following question has been referred to a Full Bench by a Bench which is hearing an appeal by Jwala and others against their conviction under section 396, Indian Penal Code, by the Additional Sessions Judge of Kheri:-'Where the prosecution in support of its case adduces evidence of identification of an accused by witnesses in the trial of the case in Sessions Court, and does not produce those witnesses in the Committing Magistrate's Court, should the evidence of such witnesses be disbelieved merely on the ground that they were not produced by the prosecution in the Committing Magistrate's Court for the said purpose?'The necessity for referring the question arose because of a conflict of views among Judges of this Court. It was pressed before the learned Judges, who referred the question, that it was a question not of law but of fact, but they felt compelled to refer it for an authoritative decision because in some decisions it was placed on the same footing as a quest...
Bharat Engineering and Foundry Works Vs. the U.P. Government
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC262(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. This and the connected references have been made by the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act the question referred to being-Whether cane crushers are agricultural implements within the meaning of the words 'agricultural implements' as mentioned in Government Notification No. S.T. 119/X-928 dated June 7, 1948 made under Section 4, U.P. Sales Tax Act of 1948 and hence exempt from U.P. sales tax.2. The question referred to in the connected Sales Tax Reference No. 455 of 1954 differs from this question, only in this respect that it includes boiling pans within its scope.3. The question arises because under notification issued by the State Government on 7th June, 1948, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Act 'agricultural implements' have been exempted from the sales tax. The assessees in these references are dealers in cane crushers and boiling pans, and their case is that these articles are agricultural implements...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›