Allahabad Court March 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.
The Tahsildar and ors. Vs. Jodh Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1963
Reported in: 1965CriLJ377
V. Bhargava, J.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants on this appeal and we find that there were numerous reasons why that petition of the respondents should have been allowed and the proceedings taken against them should have been quashed. The first point, which was taken before the learned Single Judge, was that Rule 12 of the Kumaun Panchayat Forest Rules conferring powers on the panchayat to impose a fine up to a limit of Rs. 5/- for each offence under the Forest Act was ultra vires the rule making powers of the Government which made these rules.learned Counsel appearing for the State drew our attention to the provisions of Section 6 of the Scheduled districts Act and urged that this rule conferring this powers was made in exercise of the State Government's powers to make orders under that section. That section did empower the Local Government to appoint officers to administer Civil and Criminal Justice and further to make order regulating the procedure of the officers...
Raja Syed Mohammad Saadat Ali Khan Vs. Wealth Tax Officer, A. Ward, Lu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1963
Reported in: AIR1963All488
M.C. Desai, C.J. 1. These are all petitions of Raja Syed Mohammad Saadat Ali Khan for certiorari to quash assessment orders passed under the Wealth-Tax Act [No. 27 of 1957) by the Wealth-Tax Officer, Lucknow, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal on appeal. The instant petition relates to assessment year 1957-58, writ petition No. 66 to assessment year 1958-59, writ petition No. 386 to assessment year 1959-60 and writ petition No. 385 to assessment year 1960-61. 2. Under Section 3 of the Act there is to be charged for every financial year a tax referred to as the wealth-tax in respect of the net wealth on the corresponding valuation date of every individual. Section 4 provides that in computing the net wealth of an individual there will be included as belonging to him the value of assets which on the valuation date are held by his wife, minor children, etc. Under Section 5 wealth tax is not payable by an assessee in respect of certain assets and they are not t...
Badri Prasad Vs. Lakshmi Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All426
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is landlords' second appeal from the decision of Civil Judge, Meerut, dismissing his suit for the ejectment of a tenant. The plaintiff-appellant Badri Prasad Goel is the landlord of a shop in Meerut Cantt. of which the defendant-respondentLaxmi Narain is the tenant. He alleged in his plaint that the tenant fell into arrears of rent which he did not pay in spite of the service of a notice of demand. The defendant resisted the suit and denied that he had committed any default in payment of rent, andalso pleaded that no notice was served on him. The trial Court believed the plaintiff and decreed the suit. On appeal the learned Judge held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that any notice was served on the tenant and dismissed the suit for ejectment, while upholding the decree for arrears of rent. The plaintiffhas now come to this Court in second appeal.2. Mr. Gyan Prakash for the appellant urgedonly one point in support of this appeal. He relied on Section 27 of...
Swastika Tannery of Jajmau Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC518(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. The Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, U.P., has at the instance of an assessee referred to this Court for its opinion the following two questions:(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case, the defect about the failure of the applicants to deposit the admitted amount of tax as required by the second (sic) proviso to Section 9 was cured by the provisions of Rule 67(2) ?(2) (If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative) whether the service of the notice of the hearing of the assessment case was validly made on the applicants ?2. The circumstances as stated in the statement of the case are as follows. An assessment order was passed ex parte under Sectiontion 7(3) of the Sales Tax Act and it was served upon the assessee on 24th September, 1953. Admittedly the assessee had a right of appeal against it and admittedly the last day on which he could file an appeal was 24th October, 1953. It actually filed an appeal on 12th October, 1953, with a challan for payment...
Mangal Sen Vs. Income-tax Officer, A-ward, Muzaffarnagar.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1963
Reported in: [1964]52ITR621(All)
MANCHANDA J. - The disposal of this writ petition which relates to the assessment year 1956-1957 will also govern the remaining five writ petitions for the assessment years 1953-54, 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59.The writ petitions are directed against the notices dated January 11, 1962, under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the notices issued under section 22 (4) and section 23 (2) dated the 14th of March, 1962, and 11th of September, 1962.The facts leading up to this petition are these. The petitioner was a partner in a firm M/s. Mangal Sen Manchand, an unregistered firm carrying on business at Doiwala, Dehra Dun. The other partner was Manchand. The business carried on was that of contract of loading and unloading of sugar-cane from the centre of purchase to the gate of the sugar mill called Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Limited, Mansurpur. There was an agreement between the two partners of the firm and th...
income-tax Officer, Banda Circle, Kanpur Vs. Munsif, Hamirpur, and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1963
Reported in: [1964]52ITR143(All)
The point raised in this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is whether a certain entry in a document is privileged under section 54 of the Income-tax Act.Behari Lal and Sita Ram are respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in the present writ petition. There was a proceeding between Behari Lal and Sita Ram under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to a certain room. The Magistrate, who was dealing with the criminal case, made a reference to the civil court under section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The reference came up for disposal before the learned Munsif, Hamirpur. Sita Rams case is that he had received rent for the room in dispute from a certain firm. In order to substantiate that part of his case, Sita Ram summoned the record of assessment of the firm from the Income-tax Officer, Banda Circle, Kanpur. It was urged on Behari Lals behalf that the document was privileged. That contention was overruled by the learned Munsif on May 5, 1961. He dir...
Smt. Pyara and ors. Vs. Shiv Shanker
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1963All476
Desai, C.J. 1. In this appeal arising from a decree passed for restitution of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act by a Civil Judge a preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that it does not lie in this Court. The respondent valued the suit at Rs. 200/- and obtained a decree. The appellants have valued the appeal from the decree at Rs. 11,000/- and filed the appeal in this Court. Under Section 39 of the Oudh Courts Act an appeal lies to this Court only where the value of the original suit exceeded Rs. 10,000/-. In this case the value of the original sun was only Rs. 200/- and, therefore, an appeal from that would not lie in this Court. The valuation put down by the appellants is of no consequence at all as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Paras Ram v. Janki Bai : AIR1961All395 . It is the valuation of the suit that governs the question of forum of appeal and not the valuation arbitrarily placed on the memorandum of appeal. If the valuation of suit...
Ahmad Ali Vs. Mohd. Jamal Uddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1963All581
Desai, C.J. 1. This second appeal by a plaintiff whose suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of the respondent from an accommodation governed by the Rent Control and Eviction Act has been dismissed by the courts below, came up for hearing before one of us and he referred it to a larger Bench on account of conflict among various authorities of this Court. Sri K. B. Sinha for the appellant does not press the appeal as regards the arrears of rent and we are concerned only with the question of ejectment of the respondent. The facts giving rise to the dispute are as follows. In 1952 a Munsif acting under Section 5 (4) of the Act made an order fixing Rs. 15/- as the rent of the accommodation to be paid by the respondent to the appellant. The appellant sent by registered post a notice which was received by the respondent on 28-8-1958. The relevant contents of the notice were thus : 'Rent from 1-9-57 to 31-7-58 at a rate of Rs. 15/- per month amounting to Rs. 165/-are due which please pay. S...
Malti and ors. Vs. Ram Saran and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1963All585; 1963CriLJ595
Desai, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution for the quashing of the applicants' conviction by a Nyaya Panchayat for the offence of Section 379. I. P. C, The application has been referred by our brother Beg to a larger Bench for reconsideration of the view expressed by V. D. Bhargava, J. in Ashiq Ali v. Sub-Divisional Magis-trate, Hathras, 1956 All LJ 934. 2. Ram Saran, opposite party No. 1, made a report against the applicants that they cut his crop valued at Rs. 500/-. The police investigated the matter and submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for the applicants' prosecution for the offence under Section 379, I. P. C. It is not known what they said about the value of the crop alleged to have been cut away by the applicants. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate transferred the case to a judicial Magistrate, who ordered summonses to be issued against the applicants, presumably for the offence under Section 379, I. P. C. The summonses could not be ...
S.M. Fazlul Haq and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All103; 1964CriLJ324
ORDERS.K. Verma, J.1. This is an application under Section 561-A, Cri. P. C. The prayer in the application is that proceedings in criminal case No. 44 of 1963 (State v. Fazlul Haq) under Sections 183, 448 and 454, I. P. C. be quashed.2. The facts giving rise to this application may be briefly summarised as follows. A suit, No. 162 of 1955, was filed in the Court of the 1st Additional Civil Judge of Kanpur by the applicants' own sister Smt. Sultan Jahan Begam for partition of certain family properties including a shop and a running business styled as Messrs. Mohd. Hafeez Mohd. Siddiq, 42/137 Meston Road, Kanpur. On the 18th of November, 1960, the learned Civil Judge appointed one Sri Daya Shanker Mehrotra as Receiver of the properties in suit. On the 19th of November, 1960, the applicants were in possession of the shop in dispute and they moved an application on the same date for the transfer of the case in the Court of the learned District Judge, and the proceedings in the case were st...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »