Allahabad Court March 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.
Shamsher Bahadur Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All395
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Shamsher Bahadur for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari, or a like writ or direction, to quash all the proceedings leading to and including the order dated 19-2-1959, Annexure 'F' to the affidavit, of the Town Rationing Officer / District Supply Officer, Lucknow (to be referred hereinafter as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer), respondent No. 4 who was exercising the powers of the District Magistrate under the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (to be referred hereinafter as the Act), and also the order of the State Government dated 8-2-1960, Annexure 'K' to the affidavit, whereby the order dated 19-2-1959 was re-established. The State Government has been impleaded as respondent No. 1 by the name of the State of Uttar Pradesh. A request was also made for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No. 4 not to give effect to the order of t...
Dalip Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR284(All)
BRIJLAL GUPTA J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The question referred to us for opinion is :'Was the assessment completed within the time limit prescribed by section 34(3) of the Act ?'For appreciation of the point of limitation raised by the question it is necessary to mention the following facts and dates. The assessment year in question is 1948-49. Up to February 16, 1950, the assessee had not been assessed to income-tax. On February 16, 1950, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to the assessee under section 34. The notice was served on February 23, 1950. The assessment was completed on March 28, 1953, under section 34 read with section 23(3). The point raised by the assessee was that notice having been served on February 23, 1950, the assessment should have been completed within one year of the date of the service of the notice, viz., by February 23, 1951, according to the provisions of section 34(3), first proviso, and the assessment completed ...
Messrs. Suraj Mal Mathura Prasad Deoria Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR226(All)
M.C. DESAI C.J. - These are two references under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act made by a Tribunal at the instance of the assessee, one arising out of an assessment order under section 34 and the other arising out of an order imposing a penalty under section 28. The order imposing a penalty is an order consequential to the order of assessment.The question referred to in I.T.R No. 211 is an follows :'Whether there was any material for the finding that the opening stock for the previous year in question was Rs. 1,63,513-13-8 and not Rs. 1,88,513-12-3 ?'It was admitted by counsel for the assessee and the department that the figure Rs. 1,63,513-13-8 is a mistake for the figure Rs. 2,13,530-11-3. The value of the opening stock has been taken by the department and the Tribunal to be Rs. 1,88,513-12-3 and the case of the assessee was that it should be Rs. 24,999-15-0 more (and not less); the Tribunal in referring to the question, instead of adding the amount of Rs. 24,999-15-0, deducted ...
Chanda Babu Vs. Chaugani Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All250
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal against the decision of the Additional Civil Judge, Mathura, decreeing the landlord's suit for his ejectment.2. The facts are these : The defendant-appellant Chanda Babu was the tenant of the plaintiff-respondent Chaugani Ram. The landlord filed suit for ejectment on two grounds -- first, that the tenant had created a nuisance, and secondly, he had not paid arrears of rent in spite of notice of demand. The tenant contested the suit and denied that be had been guilty of creating any nuisance. He also alleged that no notice of any demand hadbeen served on him. The trial Court held that the tenant had created no nuisance and had not beenserved with any notice of demand. Accordingly itdismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Judgeconcurred with the view of the trial Court that no nuisance had been created, but did not agree that the notice of demand had not been served. Holding the tenant guilty of default in payment of rent, he allowed t...
Bansidhar Joshi Vs. Chandra Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All348
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal against the decision of the Second Additional Civil Judge, Agra decreeing the landlord's suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff respondents are the owners of a house in the city of Agra. They filed an application before the learned Munsif under Section 7-B of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act for the ejectment of the tenant Bansidhar Joshi on the ground that he was in arrears of rent for more than three months. The tenant filed an objection under Sub-section (8) in which he admitted the tenancy but disputed the rate of rent alleged by the landlord who had claimed it at Rs. 50/-/- per mensem. The application was converted into a regular suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The learned Munsif held that the tenant had not agreed to pay Rs. 50/ per mensem and that the reasonable rate of rent was Rs. 20/-per mensem. He also held that the tenant was entitled to deduct the amount paid by him as house-tax, water tax and cha...
J.K. Jute Mills Company Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1962
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ580All
V.G. Oak, J.1. These are three connected writ petitions directed against the same Government notification issued under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as the Act). Since the three (petitions raise the same questions of fact land law, it will be convenient to dispose of the three petitions by a common judgment. I shall refer to the facts in one case. J.K. Jute Mills Company, Ltd., Kanpur, are the petitioner in Writ No. 1254 of 1961.2. According to the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner is a public limited company. It carries on business of manufacture of jute goods at Kanpur. On 25 August 1960, the Government of India set up a central wage board for jute industry. The wage board recommended that certain interim relief should be given to workmen in the jute industry. The interim relief was by way of additional wages for 1960 and 1961. The recommendation of the wage board was accepted by the Central Government. T...
Saiyed Wilayat HusaIn Kazmi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All570
Lal, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Sayid Wilayat Husain Kazmi, Accountant of the Municipal Board (now Corporation) LUCKnow. Opposite party No. 1 is the State of Uttar Pradesh,while opposite party No. 2 is Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow. Both the opposite parties have filed counter affidavits con-testing the writ petition. This petition came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court who referred it to a Bench on the ground that the points raised in this petition were of general importance. It is how this writ petition has come up for hearing before us.2. By this writ petition the petitioner prays for (1) the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or otherwise quashing the orders of the State Government dated 2-6-1960, 20-1-1961 as well as the orders passed by or on behalf of Nagar Mahapalika on 23-1-1961 end the earlier orders passed by the Administrator on 25-9-1959 and 1-10-1959. It has als...
Thakur Har Bux Singh Vs. Satish Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All376
ORDERMithan Lal, J.1. The Chief Inspector of Stamps has made a prayer to this Court, in his report, for recording a declaration under Section 61(2) of the Stamp Act to the effect that the document, Ex. 20, which has been admitted in evidence by the Civil Judge, was chargeable with a duty of Rs. 46-14-0 and with a penalty of Rs. 468-12-0 before it could be admitted in evidence. Notices on this report were issued to the parties and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents and the counsel for the State have both appeared in reply to those notices.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a suit for accounts was filed by one Raja Lal deceased, whose legal representatives are the respondants, against Thakur Har Bux Singh, who is the appellant in this case, claiming to be a partner in the business of a brick-kiln. The document dated 26-8-1946 (Ex. 20) was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge on 17-2-1949 in evidence. This document specified the plots which were let out for...
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Labour Court
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1962
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ1All
A.P. Srivastava, J.1. This a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution The circumstances in which it has arisen are these: The petitioner is a public limited company and the respondent 2 was one of its employees. The services of the respondent 2 were terminated. A dispute between the petitioner and its employees was pending on the date of termination. The respondent 2 then filed a claim before the labour court under Section 6F of the Uttar Pradesh industrial Disputes Act praying that the order terminating his services should be set aside and he should be reinstated. The ground was that the termination should have been made after obtaining prior approval of the labour court in which an earlier dispute was pending. On this application being made a notice was issued to the petitioner in which it was required to pat in appearance at 10-30 a.m. on 16 March 1961. It was also directed by that notice that the petitioner should file its written statement by that date. The gentleman who was...
Shree Gopal Paper Mills, Limited Vs. Inspector of Factories
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1962
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ697All
A.P. Srivastava, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner is a limited company and carries on the business of manufacturing paper. One of the materials used by it for manufacturing paper is bankas grass. This grass is obtained by the petitioner from the forests of Nepal and brought to the rail heads within the Indian territory. One of such rail heads is Nepalganj road in the district of Bahraich. At the rail head the grass is packed into bundles with the help of manually operated baling presses. The bundles are then loaded in railway wagons for transport and taken to the company's mills at Yamuna Nagar in the Punjab where they are converted into paper. On 13 March 1961, the Inspector of Factories, who is impleaded in the petition as the sole respondent, issued a notice to the managing agents of the petitioner saying thata manufacturing process was being carried on at the bankas depot at Nepalganj road railway station and that the said premises and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »