Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1963All12; [1963]33CompCas905(All)
Mukherji, J. 1. This is a special appeal from the decision of our brother Broome exercising Company jurisdiction. The U. P. Oil Industries Ltd., went into liquidation, on an application made by a creditor, by virtue of a winding-up order made on the 6th May, 1956. During the progress of liquidation, certain creditors claiming to be secured creditors attempted to get their money in liquidation by adducing proof of their debts. The creditors who attempted to get their money were Debenture-holders of two series, namely, the Debentures which were issued on the 24th April, 1948 and secondly, those which were issued on the 23rd June, 1950. We are in this appeal concerned with the Debenture-holders of the second series. There were 20 Debentures of the second series issued of Rs. 5,000/- each, totalling a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Raja Sharda Narayaa Singh and Company took all the 20 Debentures of the second series. It may be mentioned that the Company, namely. Raja Sharda Narayan Singh and Compa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1964All36
S.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is a landlord's second appeal against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below dismissing a part of his suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The facts are these. The plaintiff-appellant Behari Lal filed an application under Section 7B of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act before the Munsif Dehra Dun for the ejectment of the defendant respondent Mangat Ram, his tenant, for non-payment of arrears of rent. The respondent filed an objection after depositing in Court the amount claimed in the notice. Thereupon the application was treated as a plaint and the necessary Court-fee was paid. The proceedings were treated as a suit and 5-7-1951 was fixed for the final hearing. On that date the plaintiff was absent but the defendant was present when the suit was called up. As the defendant had not admitted the claim, the trial Court dismissed the suit under Order 9, Rule 8, C. P. C.2. Instead of filing an application under Order 9, Rule 9, C. P. C. f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1963All205; 1963CriLJ562
S.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the union of India and the State of Uttar Fradesh, against the decree of the Temporary Civil Judge, Shahjahanpur, granting the plaintiff respondent Yaqub Ali Khan a declaration that he continues to be a citizen of Union of India. The tacts are these; Yaqub Ali Khan was born in the village of Korokoiyan in the district of Shahjahanpur and was living there when the Constitution of India came into effect. He became a citizen under Article 5. In March 1950 as a result of communal disturbances he left India for Pakistan and remained there till 1952. It is common ground that he did not return on a Pakistani Passport because no entered India via East-Pakistan for which no pass-port was necessary at the time. He was prosecuted under the Influx of Pakistan Control Act. Later he was informed by the District Magistrate Shahjalianpur that he would be deported to Pakistan. He moved this court for relief under Article 226 but his petition was rejected on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1963All248
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a landlord's second appeal against the decree of the Second Temporary Civil Judge, Meerut, dismissing his suit for the ejectment of the tenant. The plaintiff-appellants alleged in their plaint that they had let out a house to the defendant-respondent Gopi Nath on a rent of Rs. 11/8/- p. m. The defendant-respondent stopped paying rent after 3oth November, 1952. The landlord sent a notice of demand but the arrears were not paid; hence the suit. The defendant resisted the suit and raised a number of pleas. He contended that his son was the tenant and not he, and the contract of tenancy was with the son. He also alleged that his son had taken the house in a dilapidated condition and the landlord permitted him to construct a new baithak and instal a gate and adjust the cost against rent which was enhanced by agreement from Rs. 5/- to 11/8/- p. m. The defendant claimed that a sum of Rs. 302 /- had been spent on these constructions and improvement and this sum was ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1962All471
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a second appeal by J.S. Verma a senior cloth inspector in the Supply Department against the concurrent decisions of the courts below dismissing his suit for a declaration, that the order dated 24th May 1950 terminating his services is void and inoperative and that he should be deemed as continuing in service. The plaintiff's case as detailed in his plaint is as follows :2. In 1944 he was employed in the District Supply Office, Lucknow and in 1945 promoted to the rank of senior inspector (cloth), in March 1948 his post was abolished and he was retrenched, but later in the year on August 13 due to the re-imposition of control on cloth, he was re-appointed as senior inspector (cloth) on the same pay as before. According to the plaintiff he worked to the entire satisfaction of his superiors, but on 23-5-1950 he received a notice signed by Sri B.P. Bhattacharya, District Supply Officer, that his services had been terminated with immediate effect and he was to be pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1963All249
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal against the decree of the District Judge of Bulandshahr awarding the landlord mesne profits against the appellant at the rate of Rs. 60/- per mensem. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for the ejectment of the appellant Chiranji Lal on two grounds--namely, that he had defaulted in paymentof rent and illegally sub-let a portion of the accommodation without the consent of the landlord. The plaintiffs served on the appellant a notice terminating the tenancy in which- he was warned that if he did not vacate the accommodation within one month he would be liable to pay for the use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 60/- per mensem. He refused to vacate and contested the suit. All his pleas were rejected and the decree for ejectment and arrears of rent as well as mesne profits passed against him. He has now come to his Court in Second Appeal.2. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the decree for ejectment and arrears of rentwas n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1962)IILLJ16All
Srivastava, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondents 1 to 13 were employees of the petitioner who purported to retrench them on the ground that he had closed the section of the establishment in which they were employed. The respondents then raised a labour dispute about their retrenchment. Their contention was that the whole establishment of the petitioner was one, that it was not a case of closure, that it was also not a case of lawful retrenchment, that the rules relating to retrenchment had not been followed, that the retrenchment was mala fide and that they were entitled to be reinstated. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the labour court. Several issues were raised before the labour court and it gave its award on 17 April 1961. It accepted the contention put forward by the employees and directed their reinstatement. It also directed that arrears of emoluments and other amenities payable to the labourers should be paid to them. The G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1962]46ITR208(All)
DESAI C.J. - The following question has been referred to this court by the Appellate Tribunal :'Whether on a true interpretation of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 30 and section 31 and 33 of the Income-tax Act, the appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Tribunal was not competent ?'The facts giving rise to this question are as follows :In respect of tax due for the assessment year 1950-51 a notice of demand to pay it was issued by the Income-tax Officer on October 31, 1954, and it was not paid within the prescribed time. Consequently on December 15, 1954, the Income-tax Officer imposed upon the assessee a penalty under section 46(1). The assessee appealed from this order on December 27, 1954, but without having paid the tax. During the pendency of the appeal, but after the expiry of limitation for the appeal, it paid the tax. On July 13, 1956, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal not on merits but on the ground that it did not lie because ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1962]46ITR293(All)
BRIJLAL GUPTA J. - This is an income-tax reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The question which has been referred to us for opinion is :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the salary paid or credited to a karta of the family for looking after the familys business was a permissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) in computing the income of the family business ?'The assessee was a Hindu undivided family carrying on an ancestral business in the name of Jugal Kishore Baldeo Sahai. The business was of commission agency in cloth. The family also derived income from property and was a partner through its karta (Babu Ram) in several firms. The share of profit from these firms also formed part of the income of the assessee.The assessee family consisted of Babu (karta) and his brother, Gobardhandas, and their sons. Babu Ram looked after all the businesses through which the family derived its income; Gobardhandas did not take in the management. In June, 1946, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1964]51ITR763(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred to this court the question : 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the proceedings under section 34 of the Income-tax Act were within time and legal', in the following circumstances :The assessee at whose instance the question has been referred is Raghunath Prasad Tandon, an individual. He also is a karta of a Hindu undivided family. There is a firm known as Kishore Chand Shiv Charan Lal, in which he is a partner as karta. He is also paid a salary by the firm. For the assessment year 1950-51 there arose a question whether the salary received by him from the firm was his income as an individual or an income of the Hindu undivided family and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held by its order dated November 4, 1956, that it was his income as an individual and not of the Hindu undivided family. In this reference we are concerned with the next two assessment years 1951-52 and 1952-53. For these two ...
Tag this Judgment!