Allahabad Court December 1963 Judgments
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Raja Yadavendra Dutta Dubey of Jaunpur.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1963
Reported in: [1964]53ITR770(All)
PATHAK J. - By this statement of the case under section 24(1) of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948, the Revision Board has referred the following question to this court for decision :'Whether on the facts of the case the Rajmata is a coparcener within the meaning of section 10, and, if she is a coparcener, whether her one-half share should be separately assessed to tax ?'The assessees father, the previous Raja of Jaunpur, died some years ago. Before his death he constituted a joint Hindu family under the Mitakshara law with his wife and his son, and enjoyed an interest in the joint family property. It is not disputed that he died after the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937, had come into force. Upon his death his widow the Rajmata became entitled to enjoy in the joint family property the same interest as he himself had by virtue of section 3(2) of that Act, and consequent to section 3(3) the same right to claim partition. Accordingly, in the event of partition she woul...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Prasad Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All106
Dhavan, J.1. This is an application by Seth Sheo Prasad under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution for a certificate enabling him to appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of this Court rejecting his appeal from an order of Oak, J. dismissing his petition under Article 226 and refusing to restrain the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Sales Tax Officer, Hathras and the Collector of Aligarh from recovering from him a certain amount of sales tax assessed on the firm of which the petitioner was a partner. The facts are these: Messrs, Lallamal Hardeo Das Cotton Spinning Mills Company was a partnership firm consisting of 16 partners including the petitioner Seth Sheo Prasad. It owned a cotton spinning mill in Hathras and carried on the business of producing and selling cotton yam. In 1944 differences arose between the partners and one of them. Ragunath Prasad, filed a suit for the dissolution of the partnership. This suit was dismissed on a preliminary ground and an...
Tag this Judgment!L. Ram NaraIn Garg Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1963
Reported in: [1965]55ITR435(All)
The judgment of the court was delivered byM. C. DESAI C.J. - At the assessees instances the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has submitted this statement inviting this court to answer the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the two sums of Rs. 6,727 and Rs. 6,728 being interest credited to the minors, Kailash Narain and Prem Narain, in their respective accounts, are both to be included in the assessment of their father, L. Ram Narain Garg, under section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act ?'The assessee is an individual. He has four sons, Krishna Narain, Vishnu Narain, Kailash Narain and Prem Narain. They formed a Hindu undivided family up to March 31, 1946, and the family carried on a certain business. On March 31, 1946, the coparceners separated from one another and the business assets were divided among them, each getting a sum of Rs. 91,000 and odd. On August 1, 1946, the assessee entered into a partnership with his two son...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Parvati Kuwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All154
S.N. Katju, J. 1. This a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the house in dispute and it was not liable to be sold in discharge of the Income-tax dues against the second defendant, Kesho Deo, as a Karta of the Joint Hindu Family Finn Gopi Krishna Kashi Prasad. It was alleged that the plaintiffs were the owners of the house in dispute and they had nothing to do with the second defendant on whom the Income-tax Officer of Azamgarh had imposed Income-tax amounting to Rupees 16682/14/- for the realisation of which a recovery certificate was issued by the Income-tax Officer, Azamgarh to the Collector Ghazipur under Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act and the Collector of Ghazipur in pursuance of the aforesaid certificate had wrongly attached the property of the plaintiffs. They had filed an objection for the release of their property before the Collector which was heard by the Sub-divisional Officer, Ghazipur who dismissed it summari...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Krishna Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All481; 1964CriLJ497
H.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. Appellant Gopal Krishna has filed this appeal against his convictions under Section 161 I. P. C. and under Section 5(1)(d) read withSection 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act recorded by the Special Judge, Aligarh. Appellant has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment for each of the two offences, and, both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. In May 1961 the appellant and one Mangal Sen were posted as Marketing Inspector and Senior Marketing Inspector respectively at Aligarh and in their capacity as such public servants, they used to check the accounts or stocks of the licencees of foodgrains for ensuring the proper observance of the provisions of the U. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licencing Order, 1959. Both of them were prosecuted for having committed offences under Section 161 I.P.C. and the appellant was also charged under Section 5(i)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947) while Mangal Sen...
Tag this Judgment!State Through Medical Officer of Health Vs. Ishwar Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All497; 1964CriLJ502a
H.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by a Magistrate 1stClass of Moradabad in a case under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. Sri S. N. Gupta, Food Inspector Municipal Board Moradabad, filed a complaint against' the opposite party on the allegations that on 17-2-1961 at about 9 A. M. he found the opposite party selling and exposing for sale 'Hing' at his shop; that sample of the same was obtained by the complainant which was sent to the Public Analyst for his analysis; that the report of the Public Analyst shows that it was admixed with a large quantity of foreign matter, and that the opposite party bad thus contravened the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was liable to punishment. The complainant, therefore, prayer that the accused may be tried and punished in accordance with law.3. A perusal of the complaint shows that at the foot of the complaint Dr. V. N. Srivastava had given his consent to Sri S...
Tag this Judgment!Keshava Misra Vs. Bhulai Mishra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All531
S.N. Katju, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for joint possession over the land in suit. The plaintiff Kesho Misra alleged that he was the son of Ram Sumer alias Bhabha Misra. The defendant Bholai Misra is the son of Sukhdeo Misra, the brother of Ram Sumer Misra. It was contended on behalf of the defendant that Kesho Misra was not the son of Ram Sumer Misra but he was the son of Bhabha Misra who was a person other than Ram Sumer Misra. It was contended, inter alia, that the suit was barred by res judicata and by the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, C. P. C.2. Sometime prior to the institution of the present suit Kesho Misra had instituted a suit under Sections 59/61 of the U. P. Tenancy Act for a declaration that he was the son of Ram Sumer Misra alias Bhabha Misra and was the sole tenant of the land in suit. The suit eventually went to the Board of Revenue which dismissed it on the ground that the plaintiff was not the sole tenant of the land in suit and, therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Bhadohi Investment Company Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1963
Reported in: [1965]55ITR254(All)
The judgment of the court was delivered byM. C. DESAI C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has referred the statement of the case to this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The following questions arise out of it :'1. Whether in view of the fact that the Income-tax Officer while making the assessment under section 23 of the Income-tax Act had held that the company had declared dividends to the extent of Rs. 1,65,750 out of the accumulated profits in the shape of bonus shares, it was open to the Income-tax Officer later on to pass an order under section 23A on the ground that the company had declared no dividends within the meaning of the Income-tax Act ?2. Whether an order under section 23A can be passed with regard to a company which has gone into liquidation but had not yet been wound up ?3. Whether any period of limitation applies to the proceedings under section 23A of the Act ?'The assessee is a private limited company. From the year of i...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Prasad Vs. Gopi Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All526
Dhavan, J.1. This is a judgment debtor's second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the Courts below dismissing his objections against the execution of a decree for the possession of a house. The facts of the case are peculiar. The parties are near relations and owned certain houses. There was a dispute over their partition and the matter refered to arbitration. The arbitrator's award, which was registered, was in favour of the appellant. He applied to the Court for a decree in terms of the award, but the respondent opposed this application. During the proceedings the parties compromised their dispute and it was agreed that the house in possession of the appellant would be transferred to the respondent and the one in possession of the respondent to the appellant. A clause in the compromise provided that the parties would hand over possession to one another within one month and in case of failure each party would have the right to get possession in the execution proceedings. 2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sahai Vs. Babu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1965All217
Satish Chandra, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. It arises out of a suit for injunction and damages. The parties are neighbours residing in adjoining houses. There is a piece of land in between the houses of the parties shown as ABCDEF in the plaint map. The plaintiff claims that he is the owner in possession of this land. The defendant has recently demolished the plaintiff's wall A B and has fixed a door therein and intends to use the land aforesaid unlawfully. He prayed for an injunction to restrain the defendant from using this land and to direct him to close the opening made by him at AB Rs. 25/- were claimed as damages.2. The defendant alleged that he had a right of way over the piece of land in dispute, that the plaintiff attempted to close the opening at AB and thereupon a dispute arose between the parties. The parties by a written agreement referred the dispute on 22-6-1950 to the arbitration of three named persons. The arbitrators inspected the locality, heard evidence and d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »