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.
Smt. Saraswati Devi Lohia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR491(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - I agree with the answers proposed by my learned brother whose judgment I had the privilege to read.As regards the first question not only do I see no defect in the initiation of the proceedings under section 34(1)(b) but also I do not see why the question should be allowed to be raised at all after an assessment order is passed under section 34. There may be justification for entering into the question whether the initiation of the proceedings was legal or not while the proceedings are pending, but after the proceedings have terminated income has been proved to have escaped assessment earlier and had been assessed under section 34 and the initiation of the proceedings has been justified by the result, the question loses all importance. I would oppose the quashing of an order of assessment under section 34, of income, which under the law was assessable, but had escaped assessment, simply on the ground that there was some defect in the initiation of the proceedings may...
Asghar Ali Mohammad Ali Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR962(All)
M.C. DESAI C.J. - I concur in the answers proposed by my learned brother. According to the wakf deed one-fifth of the income was to be spent on religious and charitable objects described in the wakf deed. Though in the wakf deed the income from the wakf propert : at the time of the execution of the deed was stated to be Rs. 10,000 and consequently the income set apart for religious and charitable objects was said to be Rs. 2,000, there is no doubt that what the wakif intended was that one-fifth of whatever was the actual income of the year was to be spent on religious and charitable objects in that year. That was what he intended but the amount that he intended to be spent on religious and charitable objects is not the amount allowed to be exempted from the assessable income; section 4(3)(i) provides that any income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly or in part for religious or charitable purposes, in so far as it is applied or finally set apart for...
Ford and Macdonald Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1962
Reported in: [1964]54ITR133(All)
BRIJLAL GUPTA J - These three references under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act relate to the same assessee for different assessment years and arise more or less a common question and can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.The first reference relates to the assessment years 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. The second reference relates to the assessment year 1953-54 and the third reference to two assessment years, namely, 1954-55 and 1955-56.The question which has been referred in the first reference is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the lease money and rent paid by the assessee to the lessor is a permissible deduction within the meaning of clause (xv) to sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'It will be clear from the form of the question that relates to two classes of money paid : (1) the 'lease' money; and (2) the rent. It may be stated that in the fifteen leases which are under consideration in the...
Kundan Lal Vs. Jagan Nath Sharma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1962All547
Uniyal, J. 1. This is a judgment-debtor's application in revision against an order dismissing his objections under Rule 90 of Order XXI, C. P. C. The matter come up before a learned single Judge of this Court who was of the opinion that the order of dismissal, based as it was on the proviso to Rule 90 of Order XXI, C. P. C. added by this Court, had been wrongly interpreted by the Civil Judge. The attention of the learned Single Judge was invited to a decision of this Court in Bhawan Ram v. Kunj Behari Lal, 1960 All LJ 578 : (AIR 1962 All 42) in which it was held that the proviso introduced by this Court to Rule 90 of Order XXI bars entertaining an objection altogether if the requirements of the proviso are not complied with by the time up to which the objection can be legally entertained and that the objection cannot thereafter be validly made nor can the security deposit be accepted The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the view taken by this Court in Bhawan Ram's case 1960...
State of U.P. Vs. Abdul Latif and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All229; 1963CriLJ563
J.D. Sharma, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against an order dated the 1st February 1961, of the Regional Transport Magistrate, Aligarh, acquitting the respondents of an offence under Section 123, Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Bhawani Shankar Gautam, respondent No. 2, is the owner of a transport vehicle No, UPB 2217, and the respondent No. 1, Abdul Latif, was a driver on it. At about 5-45 p.m. on the 6th September, 1960 while the transport vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1 on the Hathras-Aligarh route it was found on checking by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (E) that there was no permit for the Hathras Aligarh route. The respondents were therefore prosecuted under Section 123 of the Act. 3. The plea of the two respondents was that Bishambhar Singh who was a Manager brought his relation suffering from cholera to Lon and asked the driver Abdul Latif to take him to Aligarh hospital and that as the condition of the patient was seri...
Baij Nath and anr. Vs. Munna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All389
Brijlal Gupta, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal filed' against an appellate order maintaining an order of the trial Court by which the suit was declared to have abated on the ground that the sole original plaintiff Mst. Goma died and the application for substitution of the names of her heirs and legal representatives was made after the expiry of the prescribed period and no sufficient cause had been shown for condonation of delay in making the substitution application.The history of this litigation is somewhat chequered. It appears that originally the abatement of the suit was set aside by the trial Court on 9-11-1951, and the suit was then decided on the merits and a decree was passed in due course on 30-4-1953. Against the decree of the trial court civil appeal No. 154 of 1953 was filed by the defendant. The decree was set aside in appeal and the case was remanded to the trial court for retrial after investigation of the question as to the exact date on which Mst. Goma had died. The...
Lala Dhanpat Rai Vs. Sri Prem Sunder Bhargava and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1962All572
Mithan Lal, J. 1. This first appeal from order is sought to be filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (a) Civil Procedure Code against the order of Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, returning the plaint for presentation to proper Court.2. The present suit appears to have been instituted in 1956. Thereafter the defendant filed A written statement but no plea of jurisdiction was taken. There was also a former suit between the parties in which the jurisdiction of the Court was not challenged and, I am told the dispute relating to the former suit is still pending in appeal or revision in this Court. In this case an application for stay was moved by the defendant under Section 10 Civil Procedure Code, perhaps read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code and the learned Civil Judge passed an order of stay under Section 351 Civil Procedure Code though he appears to have found that the provisions of Section 10 Civil Procedure Code would not apply.After the order of stay was passed an application was move...
Sabir Ali and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1962All405
ORDERS.K. Verma, J.1. One Sabir Ali sold an Imli tree in his grove No. 328, situate in village Ratnapur, Police Station Bahraich, to one Jhabboo. The latter got the tree cut and removed from the grove on the 6th of February, 1958. He did so without obtaining permission from the competent authority. According to the prosecution case, ho thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 15 (1) of the U.P. Private Forests Act which reads as follows:-'15. Offences under this Chapter and trial of such offences and penalties thereof:- (1) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Chapter or deviates from the prescriptions of a sanctioned working plan without the previous sanction; of the Forest Officer shall be punishable with fine not exceeding one hundred rupees for the first offence and with fine not exceeding one thousand rupees or simple imprisonment not exceeding three months or both for the second or any subsequent offence - * * * ** *' Both Sabir Ali and Jhabboo we...
Smt. Lalti and ors. Vs. Hira Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All392
Mithan Lal, J.1. This second appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit for an injunction restraining the widow, that is appellant No. 1, from committing any acts of waste. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below.2. The established facts in the case are that the property in dispute belonged to Kheman on whose death his two sons, Arjun and Ram Charan, succeeded to his property in equal shares. Hira Lal plaintiff is the son of Arjun while Mst, Lalti, appellant No. 1 is the widow of Ram Charan. The other two appellants are said to be sons of Mst. Lalti by a former husband. The plaintiff alleged that he was the nearest reversioner and as the widow, Mst Lalti,, was committing acts of waste he prayed for the relief of injunction. The only act of waste alleged in the plaint was that Smt Lalti had made an application for entering the property in the names of the other two appellants and even though that application, was dismissed, yet the plaintiff! entertained an apprehension of...
Hukam Chand Vs. Munshi Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All251
B. Dayal, J. 1. This is a defendant's Second Appeal. He was a tenant of the house in dispute at Rs. II/4/- per month. In the rent note there was a condition that the landlord would be liable to make all the repairs necessary for the house and pay house and water taxes. The house needed repairs and the tenant sent a notice to make the necessary repairs but the landlord did not care to do so. Ultimately the tenant got the repairs done and the trial Court has accepted that a sum of Rs. 190/- was spent by the tenant on the repairs. The lower appellate Court has not upset that finding and has proceeded upon the assumption that a sum of Rs. 190/- was spent. The plaintiff gave notice demanding Rs. 78/12/- as arrears of rent and Rs. 19/8/- as compensation for use and occupation after termination of the tenancy on the Ist of March, 1953. The defendant did not pay nor did he vacate the house. Hence the suit was filed. Among other things the defendant contended that he had spent Rs. 190/- on repa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »