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.
Ajaypat Singhania Vs. Gift Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All557; [1964]52ITR780(All)
Manchanda, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 220 of the Constitution directed against the order, dated the 12th Sept. 1960 of the Commissioner of Income Tax and Gift Tax, U. P., whereby it was held that the application for revision under Section 24(1) of the Gift Tax Act was incompetent and could not be entertained.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that on the 18th of July 1957, a son was born to Mr. Vijayapat Singhania the brother of petitioner Ajaypat Singhania, a minor. On the 28th August, 1957, the petitioner's natural guardian Mr. Kailashpat Singhania, withdrew from Ajayapat's (Petitioner's) deposit account with Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/-aggregating to Rs. 2,10,000/- and placed the same to the credit of Mr. Vijaypat Singhania's newly born son's (Choota Gigga) account intending it to be a gift to him by the petitioner.3. On the 20th October, 1958, the return forms required were sent by the Gift Tax Officer along with the noti...
Board of Revenue Vs. Sridhar Advocate
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All537
V. Bhargava, J.1. This Reference has been made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act in respect of a document because that Authority felt a doubt as to whether the stamp duty on the instrument was chargeable as a 'Settlement' or as a 'Trust'. The Following three questions have been drafted by the Authority on which our opinion has been sought:(1) Whether the draft deed under reference is a 'Declaration of Trust' chargeable under Article 64, Schedule I-B of the Stamp Act; or (2) whether it is a 'Settlement' as defined in Section 2(24)(b) of the Act, chargeable under Article 58, Schedule I-B of the Act, or (3) if it is neither, under what other category does it fall under the Stamp Act for purposes of charging stamp duty. 2. We may at the outset mention that it appears to us that in framing the questions for our opinion the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority appears to have proceeded on the incorrect basis that the instrument under the Sta...
Smt. Chaboo Devi Vs. Pt. Ram Sarup and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All79
Desai, C.J.1. This is an application purporting to be under Order 44 Rule 1 C. P. C. for permission to file in forma pauperis a Special Appeal from a judgment of a Judge of this Court in a First Appeal from a decree passed by a Civil fudge in a suit for arrears of maintenance allowance and recovery of moveables. Order 44 Rule 1 lays down that a person entitled to prefer an appeal, who is unable to pay the court fee required on the memorandum of appeal, may present an application accompanied by a memorandum of appeal and may be allowed to appeal as a pauper. If a Special Appeal is governed by Order 44 the applicant is entitled to be allowed to appeal as a pauper and the sole question is whether it is governed by Order 44 Rule 1 or not. The Special Appeal itself is not an appeal governed by the Code of Civil Procedure as the Code does not provide for Special Appeals at all. It is an appeal filed under the Letters Patent and Rules of Court.Section 117 C. P. C. lays down that 'Save as prov...
Shambhoo Ji Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All528; [1964(8)FLR291]
V. Bhargava, J.1. This special appeal is directed against an order of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing a petition filed by the appellant challenging the validity of an order passed by respondent No. 1 directing the reversion of the appellant fromthe Post of Panchayat Inspector to the post of a clerk to the Collectorate.2. The facts on the basis of which the appellant came up to this Court ate not disputed. The appellant was holding a permanent post is a clerk in the Collectorate. Then a selection took place for appointment to the post of Panchayat Inspector and the appellant was selected for that post and was appointed to it on the 10th June, 1949. While he was holding this post of Panchayat Inspector, the appellant wanted to improve his educational qualifications and consequently with the permission of the District Magistrate of Orai, where he was posted, he joined B.A, Classes in a college On the 12th December, 1958 respondent No. 2 served on the appellant a charge-she...
Raja Sharda NaraIn Singh and Co. Vs. U.P. Oil Industries Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All558
Satish Chandra, J.1. These two Special Appeals arise out of the same winding up proceedings.2. U. P. Oil Industries Limited, hereinafter referred to as the Company, was compulsorlly wound up by an order dated 16-8-1956. The appellant is the holder of the second series or debentures created by the Company under a Debenture Trust Deed dated 23-6-1950. This series consisted of twenty debentures of Rs. 5,000/- each, totalling a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The appellant is recorded in the Register of Debenture Holders as the holder of all the twenty debentures of the second series. It is also admitted that the appellant had paid full consideration, that is Rs. 1,00,000/- for these debentures. These debentures created a charge over the fixed and immovable assets of the Company. The properties which were subject to this charge, were practically the only tangible assets available in the winding up for liquidation of the debts due against the Company. During the course of winding up, the learned Com...
Gita and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ161
ORDERD.D. Seth, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. All the 35 petitioners are residents of Mohalla Mir Ganj in the city of Allahabad. According to the petitioners Sri Bhupendra Singh, Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Allahabad City on 27th August 1963, took into custody all the petitioners along with some other women for an alleged breach of Section 8 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act). Sri Bhupendra Singh lodged a first information report the same day. The petitioners were produced before the City Magistrate, Allahabad, on 28th August 1963 along with a report of Sri Bhupendra Singh. The petitioners were allowed bail by the City Magistrate. The raid was organised by Sri Bhupendra Singh after he had received information that in Mohalla Mir Ganj prostitutes sit in a public place in such a manner that they can be seen or heard from any public place and that they, by words, gesture and wilfu...
Haji Mohd Shafi Vs. Ist Addl. Munsif and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All23
Desai, C.J. 1. The question raised before us in this appeal is whether Section 1-A introduced in the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, by Second Amendment Act No. 9 of 1961 hits Article 14 of the Constitution or not. The Act as originally enacted in 1947 controlled letting of all existing and future houses The letting was controlled by placing restrictions upon landlord's powers to let out houses, to enhance rent and to eject tenants Subsequently it was found by the State that this control prevented persons from constructing new houses because on account of it they did not expect to make as such profit from the construction as they could from other investments. Hence the Legislature enacted Act No. 9 of 1951; in the Statement of Objects and Reasons it was expressly stated that the working of the Act has shown that 'control over new buildings has retarded the construction of new buildings'. Section 1-A was added laying down that the Act would not apply to buildin...
Sri Krishna Banwari Lal and ors. Vs. Behari Lal Sri Krishna and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All516
Tripathi, J.1. This is a defendants first appeal directed against an order of the 1st Additional Civil Judge Kanpur, dated 2-6-1962 granting the plaintiff's application for review,2. The plaintiffs-respondents instituted a suit (suit No. 43 of 1960) in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Kanpur, against the defendants-appellants and the respondent No. 2 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,000/- with interest pendente lite and future, on the assertion that there were dealings between the plaintiffs and the defendants since long, that the defendants used to purchase goods through the plaintiffs firm, that the accounts between the parties were first squared up in sambat 2014 corresponding to year 1957 that the dealings between the parties continued even thereafter, that on the basis of entries during the period 28-10-1857 to 18-8-1959 in the account books of the plaintiffs which have been accurately maintained in the regular course of their business a sum of Rs. 12,000/- consisting of Rs. 11497...
Avinash Prasad Srivastava Vs. Smt. Chandra Mohini and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All486
Gyanendra Kumar, J.1. This is an appeal, by the petitioner-husband against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge of Bareilly dismissing his petition under Sections 10 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant had sought dissolution of the marriage, and in the alternative, judicial separation on three grounds, namely, adultery, cruelty and desertion by his wife.2. The facts of the case are that the parties were married on 27-5-1955 at Gorakhpur. In November, 1957, a son was born from their union. The allegation of the appellant is that the respondent, without any just or reasonable cause, has been refusing her society to and co-habitation with the petitioner and that she has been living in adultery with the co-respondent Chandra Prakash. He has further claimed the recovery of ornaments and garments worth Rs. 2,000/- from the respondent (Smt. Chandra Mohani).3. The co-respondent did not put in appearance at the trail, with the result that the case proceeded ex parte agai...
Krishna Kattha Industries (Private) Ltd. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All519
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. This case has come to us on a reference made by our brother D.S. Mathur. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the Krishna Kattha Industries (Private) Limited, Haldwani district Nainital (the petitioner before us) filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Kumaun, against the State of U.P. for a mandatory injunction and also applied for a temporary injunction. The learned District Judge allowed the application by means of the order dated April 8, 1960, in which he, inter alia, required the company to hypothecate property to the tune of several lacs of rupees whereupon on behalf of the company hypothecation bond (annexure 'B') scribed on a stamp folio of Rs. 18/- was filed in his Court. The relevant portions of that bond read as follows:'Hence in pursuance of the said order, J, Sarish Kumar son of Shri Krishna Pyarey Lal Managing Director of the Krishna Kathha Industries Private Limited 'July authorised by the resolution of the Company dated 7th ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »