Allahabad Court September 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.
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. D.C. Dhiman and Brothers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC473(All)
S.C. Manchanda, J.1. The question referred for decision to this Court under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is whether in the circumstances and on the facts of the case the assessee came within the meaning of the term 'dealer' under Section 2(c) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act.2. The facts leading up to this petition briefly are these. The assessee is a manufacturer of railway vans and bogies and had taken one contract for the supply of 36 parcel vans for Rs. 3,96,000 to the North Eastern Railway. The assessee was carrying on the business of structural engineers, ship, wagon and coach builders as a partnership firm at Calcutta. From the material on record, in the year of account, it appears that this was the only contract taken for the supply of railway wagons to the North Eastern Railway. The agreement between the General Manager, on behalf of the President of India, and the assessee was a single contract for the supply of 36 parcel wagons. The assessee had no branch or place of busin...
Madho Lal Vs. Hari Shanker and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All547
M. Lal, J. 1. This second appeal filed by the defendant arises out of a suit for malicious prosecution. The Suit has been decreed by both the Courts below. 2. The only point, which has been argued in this appeal, is that the present suit having been instituted more than one year after the order of acquittal was barred by time. 3. A complaint under Sections 323/324/452, I.P.C. was filed by the defendant-appellant against the plaintiffs respondents on 8th June 1950. That complaint was dismiss ed and the plaintiffs were acquitted by an order dated 29th December, 1950. A revision against the order of acquittal was filed, which was dismissed on 31-8-1951. Thereafter the present suit was filed on 20-8-1952. The point for determination is whether the limitation in the case began to run from the order of acquittal passed on 29th December 1950 or from the order dated 31-8-1951 when the revision was dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The respondents in this case are un...
Harihar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ541
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J.1. This order governs Criminal Reference No. 12 of 1962 and Criminal Revision No. 99 of 1962 arising out of the same case, Kumari is the daughter of Smt. Gujrati, and Harihar claims to be the husband of Kumari. Smt. Gujrati moved an application for issue of a search warrant under Section 100, Cri. P. C. with the allegation that Harihar had wrongfully confined her daughter, Kumari. Smt. Gujrati denies the marriage and her case further is that Kumari is minor aged not more than 13 years. Smt. Gujrati made two conflicting statemerits but for purposes of these proceedings it shall be sufficient to note that according to her age of Kumari is about 13 years. Kumari was in due course arrested and produced before the Magistrate. She then indicated her desire to live with her mother, Smt. Gujrati.2. After recording the evidence of the parties the Magistrate arrived at the opinion that Kumari had been married to Harihar and that she was not wrongfully confined. He therefore d...
L. Parduman Kumar and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR394(All)
JAGDISH SAHAI J. - This is a reference made by the members of the Agricultural Income-tax Revision Board, U.P., in pursuance of a direction given by this court on 16th of August, 1956. The question referred to us is in the following words :'Whether in the circumstances of the case it could be said that there was material on which the Board could base its finding that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to separate ?'The facts as given in the statement of case are as follows :The assessing authority, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saharanpur, had passed an order on the 14th of September, 1950, on an application made by the assessee, L. Parduman Kumar, with his return, alleging that there was the partition in the joint family consisting of himself, his son, Deo Kumar, and their respective wives on 25th September, 1948, and ever since, all the four members had become separate in status. The assessing authority on September 14, 1950, allowed that application and held, that a pa...
Amaldar Singh Vs. Sabhajit Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All580
M. Lal, J. 1. This second appeal filed by the defendant arises out of a suit for malicious prosecution. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant did nothing more than lodging a report in the Police and the prosecution of the plaintiffs-respondents having been launched by the Police the defendant-appellant could not be called a prosecutor, nor could be be held to be responsible for damages. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the defendant lodged a report in the thana stating that on the evening of 24th May 1947 the plaintiffs entered their house, committed a theft and removed certain articles. After this report the Police investigation followed and the plaintiffs were prosecuted which resulted in their acquittal. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was the actual prosecutor, that the complaint was false, malicious and without reasonable and probable cause and so they claimed Rs. 575/- as dam...
Ram Prasad and anr. Vs. Chhajju and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All300
S.D. Singh, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of suit No. 308 of 1950 of the Court of Munsif Muzaffarnagar.2. The suit was filed by one Chhajju who purchased a house for a sum of Rs. 400/- under a sale dead date 1-7-1949 from Baldewa, defendant NO. 1. Baldewa and defendant No. 2, Mahu, were brothers, Mahu having died since then. The plaintiff's contention was that although he purchased the house from defendant No. 1, his brother Mahu had taken possession over the same-and that Mahu was asserting that it was he who was the owner of the house and not Baldewa. The plaintiff therefore, filed the suit for recovery of possessor over the house and in the alternative he claimed refund of Rs. 400/- against defendant No. 1. Baldewa admitted that he had sold the house to the plaintiff. The real contest in the suit was between the plaintiff and Mahu Mahu alleged that he was doing contract business at Jagadhri and had sent Rs. 1440/- from there to his brother Baldewa at different times ...
Central Distillery and Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All156
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. The petitioner, Central Distillery and chemical woks Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Distillery) is a limited liability company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It is engaged in manufacturing power alcohol, one Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma (hereinafter called Sharma) was employed as a turner in the Distillery. The management of the Distillery served a charge-sheet dated 9th July, 1956 on Sharma on 10th July, 1956. In that connection, an Enquiry committee, consisting of Sri S. S. Singhal, secretary of the Distillery, Sri B..N. Khanna, Chemist of the Distillery and Sri Mahendra Singh, one of the workmen of the Distillery was appointed to investigate into the charges against Sharma. on the basis of the report of the enquiry Committee, the management of the Distillery held Sharma guilty of gross mis-conduct and by their order dated 26th July, 1956, which was served on Sharma on 27th July, 1955, dismissed him from service. By its order dated the 18th Dec...
State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Indramani Jatia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All484
S.D. Singh, J.1. The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this Second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahar in civil appeal No. 305 of 1952 which itself arose out of suit No. 420 of 1950 of the Court of Munsif, Khurja.2. The suit was filed by Smt. Indramani Jatia for recovery of Rs. 1800/- as damages against the State of Uttar Pradesh and three other defendants Dharam Deo, Shib Dayal and Jai Gopal, who were defendants 2 to 4 in the suit and are respondents 2 to 4 in this appeal. It appears that one Kanchilal was a tenant in the house which is the subject-matter of this litigation, and was, paying Rs. 60/- per month as rent to the owner Smt. Indramani Jatia. Kanchhilal was probably a member of the Rashtriya Swamasewak Sangh, which body was declared an unlawful association in February, 1948, under Section 17-A of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act 14 of 1908 (to be referred hereafter as the Act). Kanchhi Lal was probably also keeping the office...
Khudo Mal Madan Mohan and ors. Vs. Dominion of India B.B. and C.i. Rly ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All276
Takru, J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against an appellate order of the learned Civil Judge, Mathura dismissing his suit for the recovery of Rs. 1226/13/6 as damages from the Dominion, now the Union of India. It has come up before us, on a reference by a learned single Judge, on account of the importance of the question of law involved in it. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : 2. The plaintiff booked a consignment of silver ornaments from Mathura Cantonment Station on the B. B. C. I. Railway to Deoria Station on the O. T. Railway, The consignment was not delivered. The plaintiff thereupon laid a claim to Rs. 1226/13/6 with the administrations of both railways, and on not receiving satisfaction from either of them, brought the present suit, against the Dominion of India after giving notices under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act to the General Managers of those railways and notice under Section 80, C. P. C. to the Secretary, Railway Board, N...
R.B. Champalal Ramsarup Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, èu.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR194(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is a case stated under section 66(2) of the Income-tax (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).The questions referred ar :'(1) Whether there was any material before the Tribunal for the finding that neither of the two amounts of Rs. 3,25,000 and Rs. 16,005 was a bad debt arising during the course of the money-lending business of the assessee?(2) What was the true nature of the transactions and whether in view of the true nature of the transactions, the debt could still be claimed as bad debts in working out the assessable income of the assessee?(3) Whether there was any material on which the Tribunal could arrive at the finding that the debts had become bad prior to the year of account in question?'Before dealing with the facts pertaining to these questions, it may be noticed that Mr. Gulati, the learned standing counsel, had raised a preliminary objection that this court wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »