Allahabad Court January 1963 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.
State of U.P. Vs. Sant Lal Har Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1963
Reported in: AIR1963All495
ORDERS.C. Manchanda, J.1. This is a revision by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the order of the Additional Civil Judge, Dehra-Dun dated the 12th of November, 1960 whereby [t was considered that the demand for Income-tax had priority over unsecured creditors but not the demand for Sales-tax.2. There were amounts lying in the Court of the Civil judge belonging to Sant Lal who was in arrears of Income-tax as well as Sales-tax dues. The Collector by an application requested the Civil Judge to attach Rs. 1195.62 nP. due as Income-tax and Rs. 1265.50 due as Sales-tax. The lower court took the view:'In my opinion, the order is good so far the Income-tax dues. The learned counsel for the decree-holders also conceded that there is a priority to recover the Income-tax dues. ........... I do agree with this argument that the Sales-tax dues do not get any priority before other dues. The money is in the hands of this Court and now it can be distributed only under-section 73 of the C. P. C.'The ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Umesh Chandra Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1963
Reported in: AIR1963All601
ORDERS.C. Manchanda, J.1. This is a revision against the order of the Additional Civil Judge Varanasi dated the 13th May, I960, whereby he directed that suit No. 94 of 1957, filed by the applicant, the Union of India, be stayed under the provisions of Section 10 of the C. P. C.2. The stay was granted on the ground that in a previous suit No. 20 of 1949, the opposite parties had filed a suit against the present applicants and in the written statement filed by the Union of India a plea was taken, in paragraph 22OF the written statement, that the plaintiff had obtained a refund of octroi duty from the Municipal Board, amounting to Rs. 22,445/9/ 9, in connection with this transport contract, which is justlydue to and recoverable by the Union of Indiaand which was being unjustly withheld by the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had not only failed to perform his part ofthe contract but was guilty of breach of trust. Asthis was a claim set up by the present applicant in su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›