Allahabad Court December 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.
Sucha Singh Vs. Administrative Officer, Afzalgarh Colonization Scheme, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All528
M.C Desai, C.J.1. This petition has been laid before this bench at the instance of our brother Broome who was of the view that the decision of this Court in Bir Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1960 All LJ 52 required reconsideration in view of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Manna Lal v. Collector of Jhalawar, AIR 1961 SC 828 and Nav Rattanmal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1704.2. The petition is for certiorari to quash certain orders of the Additional Collector, Bijnor, and the District Judge Bijnor, and mandamus requiring them and others to refrain from interfering with the possession of the petitioner and his partners over certain land in village Azamullah Nagar, or, in the alternative, to restore possession over it to them. It arises in the following circumstances. The land in dispute in the petition, measuring about 343 bighas, is a portion of land measuring about 800 acres in village Azamullah Nagar of Bijnor district in respect of which the proprietors of...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Ch. Mithoo Lal Roshan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC781(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. This and the connected cases have been referred to this Court under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act by the Judge (Revisions) at the instance of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. The questions referred are the same in all the four cases, they being,1. Whether the sales made by the assessee at London be included in the sales made in U. P. to fix their gross turnover for the purpose of determining their liability to tax with respect to sales made in U. P. ?2. Whether in the circumstances and on the facts of the case, the sale made by the assessee would be assessable to tax under Section 2(h), Explanation II (ii) ?2. The cases are in respect of different assessment years of the same assessee, the assessment years being 1951-52, 1952-53, 1954-55 and 1955-56 respectively.3. For the reasons given in our judgment in Miscellaneous Case No. 263 of 1960, Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. Balbir Singh and Company decided today Since reported at [1963] 14 S.T.C. 546, our...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Balbir Singh and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC546(All)
1. This and connected cases have been referred to this Court under Section 11 (1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act by the Judge (Revisions) at the instance of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. They are in respect of different assessment years of the same assessee, the assessment years respectively being 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54. The question referred jn the cases is :-(a) Whether the sales of the opposite party M/s. Balbir Singh & Company, 21, A. P. Sen Road, Lucknow, made by them in the capacity of a commission agent would be included in their gross turnover in order to determine their liability to tax.2. Under Section 3 of the Sales Tax Act as it was in force during the assessment years under consideration a dealer was under an obligation to pay on turnover in each assessment year a tax at a certain rate, provided that a dealer whose turnover in the previous year was less than Rs. 12,000 was exempt from the liability for the assessment year. 'Dealer' means a person carrying on the bus...
Sarju Pd. Pritam Lal Vs. Judge, Revisions, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC884(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, at the instance of the assessees, inviting this Court's answers to the following questions :(1) Whether the assessees are dealers within the meaning of the explanation to the definition of 'dealer' as given in Section 2(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act ?(2) Whether the explanation is ultra vires of the Legislature ?(3) Whether the assessees are not agents of ex-U.P. principals ?(4) Whether the sales were inter-State sales under Article 286 of the Constitution of India ?(5) Whether Tulai charges formed part of the selling price ?2. The connected reference is at the instance of another assessee and the questions raised are the same. In both cases we are concerned with the assessment year 1951-52. The assessees have been assessed to sales tax on proceeds of sales of two kinds, (1) sales of own goods as dealers and (2) sales of goods belonging to other persons residin...
The Mining and Chemical Industries Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC391(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This is a reference under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, made at the instance of the applicant. The applicant is a limited company, the Mining and Chemical Industries Limited, Agra. It carried on the business of manufacturing and selling chemicals.2. It appears that the applicant sold some machinery, packing materials and other articles, and was taxed on the sale proceeds by the Sales Tax Officer for the assessment year 1953-54.3. The applicant preferred an appeal, and the Judge (Appeals) found that the applicant had decided to close its business on account of losses and debts, and that the factory and mines were actually closed and a decision was taken to sell off the assets. He held that the sale of the machinery, which was a part of the capital assets of the business, was not effected with a view to carry on any business but merely for the purpose of liquidating the debts, and that the transfer of such machinery could not be treated to be a 'sale' ...
ShitladIn and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh Allahabad and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All549
Desai, C.J.1. The following question has been referred by our brother Broome to a larger Bench :'Whether in a suit under Section 59 of the U. P. Tenancy Act and the appeal arising out of such a suit, the Zamindar was a necessary party even after the abolition of the Zamindari?'2. The question arises in a suit instituted under Sections 59, 180 and 183 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, by the petitioners against Azimullah lumberdar of the mahal in which the land in dispute is situated and all the co-sharers of the mahal, including Sadiq Husain and Salim Ullah, alleging that Salim Ullah, who is a son of Azim Ullah, had no cultivatory right at all in the land in dispute and his name was fictitiously recorded in the village papers and that they themselves were the hereditary tenants. The suit was contested only by Salim Ullah; the lumberdar and other co-sharers did not contest it. While it was pending the U. P. Tenancy Act was repealed and the U. P. Zamin-dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act c...
Ram Devi Vs. Raja Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All564
S.N. Katju, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for maintenance brought by her against her husband the defendant-respondent. She claimed maintenance for three years at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month and also claimed future maintenance at Rs. 100/- per month.2. The plaintiff alleged that she was the legally married wife of the respondent and she had lived with him for some time after her marriage, that her husband treated her cruelly and had driven her away after taking her clothes and ornaments and she was forced to come back to her father's home and had been living with her father for eight years prior to the institution of the suit. She alleged that the defendant had remarried another woman and was not maintaining the appellant.3. The defendant-respondent contested the suit Inter alia on the ground that the parties were not married according to legal rites and since the plaintiff was impotent she could not be legally married to the respondent. It was alleged that ...
Haji Rahim Bux and Sons and ors. Vs. Firm Samiullah and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All320
S.D. Singh, J.1. The appellants in both the appeals are judgment-debtors in decree No. 59 of 1958 of the Court of Civil Judge, Kanpur, which was passed ex parte on 19th May, 1958, and the respondents are the Firm Haji Sanaullah and sons, who are decree-holders in the aforesaid decree.2. While the suit was still pending, the respondents moved an application for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (to be referred to hereafter as the Code). The property sought to be attached was, however, situated at Lucknow aud he order for attachment of the property was, therefore, sent to Lucknow under Sub-section (1) of Section 136 of the Code. This Sub-section (1) of Section 136, however, requires that the order of attachment shall be sent to the District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate and under Sub-section (2) of the same section it is open to the District Court to have the attachment made by its own offi...
Mansoor Madaru Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All477; 1963CriLJ363
ORDERR.A. Misra, J. 1. Through this application Mansoor applicant has prayed that a criminal appeal in which he is one of the two appellants be transferred from the file of Sri Hira Lal Capoor, Sessions Judge, Hardoi, to the Court of one of the two Additional Sessions Judges posted at Hardoi or to any other District and Sessions Judge competent to hear it. The application is supported by the applicant's affidavit. 2. The relevant facts as disclosed in the applicant's affidavit are as below. The applicant was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 368, I. P. Code and the co-accused Zafar Ahmad, who was found guilty under Section 376, I. P. Code, was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Hardoi. 3. They both filed a joint appeal which was fixed for hearing on 25-7-1962 before Sri Hira Lal Capoor, Sessions Judge, Hardoi. Just a day before the hearing of the appeal i.e. on 24-7-1962, the applicant engaged a senior lawy...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Asha Ram Sushil Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC556(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This is a reference under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. The questions referred for the opinion of this Court are as follows :(1) Whether the proviso to Rule 39(1) of the Sales Tax Rules is valid and whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessment of the asscssee on the basis of the assessment year under Section 7(1) read with Rule 39(1) was legally valid ?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the assessee on the basis of the assessment year is valid on the ground that he had not carried on business for all twelve months during the year 1953-54 ?2. The respondent, Messrs Asha Ram Sushil Chandra, is a dealer in kerana and medicines at Baraut in the district of Mcerut. It commenced its business on 6th November, 1953.3. The Sales Tax Officer assessed it for the assessment year 1953-54 in accordance with the provisions of Sectio...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »