Allahabad Court January 1964 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.
Krishna Agarwal Vs. Bhawani Prasad Girdhar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All480
Dhavan, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal from the order of the First Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, dismissing his objection against the transfer of the decree from the Kanpur Court to the Allahabad Court. The appellant is an Advocate of this Court. The plaintiff respondent obtained a decree against the firm of which the appellant is a partner being a member of the joint Hindu family which owns the firm, and then applied for the transfer of the decree to the Allahabad Court. The appellant filed an objection on the ground that the judgment-debtors had sufficient property at Kanpur to satisfy the decree and there was no necessity for proceeding in execution against him at Allahabad. It was rejected by the execution court and the appellant has come to this Court in appeal.2. The case was heard at some length at the last hearing but adjourned on a suggestion from us to enable the parties to explore the possibilities of a compromise. We are informed by Mr. Bajpai, counsel for the ap...
Jhamman Lal and ors. Vs. Deputy Custodian General and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All253
Oak, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of a proceeding under para 6 of Schedule V to U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. Jhaman Lal and two others are petitioners before this Court. Girdhari Lal and four others are respondents Nos. 2 to e. The dispute between the parties relates to 32 plots situate in village of, district Mathura. At one time one Syed Mahammad was the tenant or these 32 plots. He migrated to Pakistan. The plots were declared as evacuee property. The evacuee property Department allotted the plots to respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The petitioners claim that they are Adhivasis of these 32 plots. So on 17-11-1954 they filed an application under Section 232 of the Act to recover possession over the plots. They claimed Adhivasi rights under Section 20(b)(1) of the Act on the ground that, they were recorded as 'occupants' in the village records for 1356 Fasli. The revenue Court directed the petitioners to get a declaration of their alleged Adhivasi rights ...
Municipal Board Vs. Rizwan Beg
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All544; 1964CriLJ627
M.H. Beg, J.1. This appeal against an order of acquittal passed by Bench Magistrates of Ghaziabad has come up after obtaining special leave to appeal under Section 417(8), Cri. P. C. The respondent, amanager; of an ice factory, is alleged to have violated byelaws of the Municipal Board Ghaziabad for the - 'Regulation and Control of Ice Factories' in the Ghaziabad Municipality, framed under Section 298 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, and notified in the Government Gazette, under notification No. 2366/XXIII-37(1)-48-49 dated May 6, 1949.2. The Magistrates who tried the case held that the complaint was not made in accordance with the 'requirements of laws in this behalf' They did not specify in their judgment any provision of law for the making of the complaint which had not been complied with by the complainant. I have examined the complaint, and I find that the learned Magistrates were in error in holding that the complaint itself was legally defective. 3. The learned Magistrates...
Purshottam Das Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1967All398
ORDERS.C. Manchanda, J.1. On a difference of opinion this case has been referred to me. The question that was framed by the Supreme Court and which was ultimately directed by the High Court to be referred was--'Whether on the materials on record the Board of Revenue could say that there was evidence to show that there was no partition of the family 'in point of fact'2. The words underlined (here in ' ') are mainly responsible for the difference of opinion. These words have been interpreted by the learned Chief Justice to mean that the High Court was only required to determine the factual position as to whether there was any material for the Board of Revenue to hold that there was no separation in fact between the members of that family, and the legal position of partition under the Hindu Law was intended by the. Supreme Court to be completely ignored.3. The existence of the following circumstances (1) the absence of any necessity for separation, common management of property by one per...
M.A. and Company Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax and a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1964
Reported in: [1964]15STC487(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner, M/s. M. A. Company, is a partnership firm, which carried on the business of the manufacture and sale of hand-made bidis during the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58. The petitioner has been assessed to sales tax for the assessment year 1957-58 at the rate of one anna per rupee Under Section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The petitioner made a number of applications Under Section 7-E of the Act for permission to pay a sum by way of composition on the turnover of the period 14th December, 1957, to 31st March, 1958, in lieu of the tax payable thereon but these applications were rejected, principally on the ground that they were made beyond the time prescribed therefor. The petitioner prays for certiorari quashing the order rejecting the applications made Under Section 7-E and for mandamus directing the respondents not to realise the sales tax assessed by the assessment order for the year 1957-58.2. This petition came on for hearing before our brother M...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ramji Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All184
S.N. Katju, J.1. These are two connected appeals which arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiff Ramji Lal against the first two defendants viz. Dominion of India through the Secretary, Central Government (Post and Telegraph Department), New Delhi and the Dominion of India through the General Manager, E. I. R. Calcutta, and the third defendant Firm Ananda and Co.2. It was alleged that the plaintiff had sent ten harmoniums worth Rs. 950/- for defendant No. 3 from Aligarh to Howrah per P. W. B. No. 024768 on 15-2-1949 (weight 3 Mds. 20 Seers--10 cases, Railway freight to pay Rs. 34/15/-). The railway receipt was endorsed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 3 and was despatched by a V. P. Letter for Rs. 950/- addressed to the third defendant on 18-2-1949. The said V. P. Letter was not delivered to the third defendant in the normal course but was tampered with and was cut open and the railway receipt was taken out from it, and, subsequently, the envelope was given back to the plai...
Pt. Deo Sharma Vs. Income-tax Officer, District Ii(ii), Kanpur, and An ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1964
Reported in: [1964]54ITR759(All)
OAK J. - The question for consideration in this writ petition is the true scope of sub-section (6) of section 35, Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').Deo Sharma is the petitioner. He had two separate sources of income. Firstly, he had income from his share in the firm, M/s. L. N. Gadodia & Company, Kanpur, to the extent of 0-4-0 in the rupee. Secondly, he received by way of renumeration one-fourth share in the net profits of a certain retail shop at Kanpur for managing that shop. Initially, income-tax was assessed on the footing that the petitioners one-fourth share in the net profits of the retail shop constituted income from business, and he was subjected to excess profits tax under the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. On that basis, an order was passed on February 22, 1947, assessing the petitioner to income-tax for three separate assessment years, 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47. The petitioner contested his liability to pay excess profits tax. That matter was referred ...
Panna Lal Ram Kishore Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All166; [1964]15STC245(All)
Desai, C.J.1. This petition, principally for certiorari for the quashing of an assessment order passed on 24-3-1962 by a Sales Tax Officer and an order passed by the Sales Tax Commissioner on 23-10-1961 refusing to issue certain directions to the Sales Tax Officer has been referred by oar brother Manchanda to a larger Bench on account of a conflict among various High Courts on the question of law involved in the impugned orders.2. The assessee is a dealer carrying on interstate business in khandsari sugar in Uttar Pradesh. The question in this petition is of assessment to sales tax for the assessment year 1957-58 on the turnover of inter-state sales in khandsari sugar. Sales Tax is payable on turnover of inter-state sales under the Central Sales Tax Act No. 74 of 1950.It defines dealer to mean any person who carries on business of buying and selling goods and turnover to mean the aggregate of the price received in respect of sales of any goods in the course of interstate trade. Section...
Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1964
Reported in: [1964]53ITR37(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - This statement of case has been submitted to this court at the assessees instance by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act inviting it to answer the following question, said to be a question of law arising out of it :'Whether the assessee firm which had distributed its book profits amongst the partners according to the instruments of partnership but which had not distributed the profits earned by it in the black market amongst the six partners in accordance with the instrument of partnership was entitled for renewal of registration for the assessment year 1948-49 ?'The assessee is a firm consisting of two groups of partners, one consisting of Khanjan Lal having four annas share and his three sons having two annas share each and the other, consisting of Sewak Ram having four annas share and his mother having two annas share. The firm was registered under section 26A for the assessment years 1942-43 to 1947...
Kanhaiya Lal Radha Krishna Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1964
Reported in: [1965]55ITR568(All)
The judgment of the court was delivered byM. C. DESAI C.J. - This is a statement of a case submitted at the assessees instance to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, inviting this courts answer to the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax authorities were justified in refusing to register the firm under section 26A of the Act ?'The assessee is a firm owned by two brothers, Lakhan Lal and Radha Krishna, and carrying on business in grains at Kanpur. It was registered under section 26A of the Income-tax Act for and up to the assessment year 1945-46 and it applied for renewal for the assessment year 1946-47. The Income-tax Officer found in the course of assessment for 1946-47 that it carried on two undisclosed businesses in grains at two more places, Debiapur and Jhijhak. The business at Debiapur was alleged to be carried by a partnership consisting of the wives of the partners of the assessee and of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »