Allahabad Court February 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.
Bholanath Vs. Balbhadra Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All527
Dhavan, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal from the decree of the Additional Civil Judge of Banda dismissing his suit for the specific performance of an agreement for the sale of three houses and four shops situate in the City of Banda. The parties are residents of that city. The plaintiff Bholanath was a minor both at the time of the execution of the alleged agreement of sale and the filing of the suit. The defendant Balbhadra Prasad is admittedly the owner of the property in dispute. The plaintiff alleged in his plaint that on the 4th of March 1948 the defendant promised to his father and guardian that he would execute a sale deed of the property in one month and simultaneously executed a written agreement incorporating his promise. The plaintiff complained that the defendant afterwards went back on his promise and his father had to serve a registered notice on the first of April 1948 requiring him to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement, but the defendant did not do so. Fi...
Hira Lal Sutwala Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. and V.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1964
Reported in: [1965]56ITR339(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act submitted to this court a statement of the case; the questions formulated by it are :'1. Whether the order imposing penalty under section 46(1) of the Act was legal 2. Whether the order of rectification passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 35 of the Act on March 31, 1948, was legal and valid ?'The assessee, an individual, is a partner in two firms : (1) Ganesh Prasad Dalal (which for the sake of brevity will be known as firm 'G'), and (2) Bhojnagarwala Brothers (which for the sake of brevity will be known as firm 'B'). Now it is established that these are two distinct firms but at one time there was a dispute whether they were distinct firms, whether one of them was not a branch of the other. For the assessment year 1943-44, the assessee submitted a return showing separately his incomes from the partnership in the two firms. According to the return the two firms existed distinct...
Kishan Chand Vs. Ram Babu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All65
Desai, C.J.1. This second appeal has been referred to a Full Bench because of a conflict between Manohar Lal v. Benares Bank Ltd. AIR 1947 All 245 and Veeravya Vandayar v. Sivagami Achi .2. The suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted by the respondent against the appellant for the recovery of a mortgage debt. It was contested by the appellant on several grounds including the grounds that 'the defendant is an agriculturist within the meaning of U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act ...... and the plaintiff did not give to him a copy of the mortgage deed and consequently he is not entitled under the law to recover interest' and that the plaintiff was a creditor and he did not keep an account and did not give to him a statement of the account and is, therefore, not entitled to costs of the suit. Neither did the respondent file a replication nor did the trial court examine the parties under Order 10 Rule 1, C. P. C. Under Rule 1 it was obligatory upon it to ascertain from the respondent or...
Gajadhar Singh Vs. Harnandan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All442
Desai, C. J.1. I agree with the conclusions drawn by my brother Bishambhar Dayal in his judgment.2. What is required under Sections 240-A and 240-B of the Act is that the land should be held 'or be deemed to be held' by an adhivasi. 'Held' in this context means 'owned by', 'belonging to', 'included in the holding of'. A person can own. land, or land can be included in the holding of a person, without his being in actual possession of it; whether he owns the land or it is included in his holding is essentially a question of title quite distinct from the question, of possession. Title may synchronise with possession but can also be in one person while the possession is in another. Sections 240-A and 240-B do not take possession at all into consideration; if a person has title as an adhivasi over the land it is within their scope irrespective of whether he is in actual possession or not. If the legislature had intended that the land should, not only be held by an adhivasi but also, be in ...
Vidya Bhushan Chandra Shekhar and ors. Vs. Parag Balbhadra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All360
Desai, C.J.1. This special appeal is directed against an order passed by our brother Beg quashing by certiorari orders passed by a Consolidation Officer, a Settlement Officer and a Deputy Director on an objection filed by the appellant under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The statement of plots and tenure-holders was prepared under Section 11 and in it the respondent Parag was recorded as Sirdar of the land in dispute on the basis of similar entries in the village records. No objection was filed by the respondent claiming Bhumidhari rights over the land in dispute but an objection, though belated, was filed by the appellant claiming that he himself held Sirdari rights in the land and that the name of Parag was wrongly entered in the statement. The appellant had filed the objection before the Consolidation Officer. It has been filed under Section 12 (1) which as it stood then, was to the effect that 'any person may within 30 days of the publication of the stateme...
Bal Gopal Das Vs. Mohan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All504
V. Bhargava, J.1. The question referred for the opinion of the Full Bench is -'Is the Tribunal constituted under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 (Act No. LXX of 1951) a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 Civil Procedure Code? Does a revision under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code lie against an order passed by such a tribunal?'2. I have had the benefit of reading the judgments proposed to be delivered by my brothers S. D. Khare and G. C. Mathur, JJ., but I regret I am unable to agree with them. This question came up before me in an earlier case of Sunder Das v. Lach-man Das, : AIR1957All352 . Having heard learned counsel on the present occasion and having given very careful consideration to the views expressed by my brothers in their proposed judgments, I still End no reason to change the view thai was taken by me earlier in the case cited above.3. In the course of arguments before us. it appears to have been assumed that, whenever ...
Khageshwar Vs. Hoshram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1966All191
Desai, C.J.1. The appellant is Khageshwar and respondent No. 1 is his brother, Hoshram. During the consolidation proceedings a statement mentioned in Section 8 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was prepared. The dispute between the appellant and the respondent is about certain land which is claimed by the appellant as owned jointly by him and the respondent and is claimed by the respondent as owned exclusively by him. It is not known what entries were made in the statement prepared under Section 8 but no objection was made under Section 9 by the appellant or the respondent against whatever entry was made in it. After hearing objections from other parties about other land the statement was revised as required by Section 10(2) and was published as required by Section 11-B. In the revised record the entry was of 'Hoshram alias Khageshwar', The entry was obviously wrong; 'Hoshram' was not the alias of Khageshwar being his brother's name. Khageshwar had an alias but it was 'Kharag' and n...
Loon Karan Sethiya and anr. Vs. Additional Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All373
V. Bhargava, J. 1. Special Appeal No. 238 of 1958 filed by Seth Loon Karan Sethiya and another is directed against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court partly allowing and partly dismissing a petition filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution. Connected with it is the Special Appeal No. 116 of 1958 filed by the Regional Provident fund commissioner and another against the same judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the same writ petition. The learned Single Judge, By his Judgment, had allowed the writ petition of Loon Karan Sethiya and another to the extent of granting the prayer of issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the certificate of recovery dated 8th May, 1957, purporting to have been issued under Section 8 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, further, to quash the proceeding taken in pursuance of that certificate for attachment of the properties of Loon Karan Kethiya. It is against this par...
Ram Chand Textile Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All24; [1964]15STC340(All)
M.C. Desai, C. J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of (sic) Gupta. I dismissing the appellants' petition for certiorari to quash assessment orders under the U. P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1955-56 and proceedings for realisation of the tax assessed for the years and mandamus calling upon the Sales Tax Officer and the Collector of Aligarh not to enforce the assessment orders the demand notices and the certificates of recovery The appellants are manufacturers of and dealers in cotton yarn and cloth Upto 31-3-1954 they formed a partnership and the partnership manufactured and dealt in cotton yarn and cloth Section 3 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act has been amended several times. As originally enacted the section laid down that subject to the provisions of the Act every dealer would pay on turnover of each assessment year a tax at a certain rate. The section as amended by Act No VIII of 1954 provided that subject to the provisions of the Act every dealer would in each...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Mohamad Usman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All269
Satish Chandra, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant, the Union of India. It is directed against an order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Jhansi, granting an application under Sections 8 and 20, Arbitration Act.2. Mohammad Usman, the plaintiff-respondent, on 8-3-1945 entered 11 to a contract with the Union of India to supply meat to the Military Regiment between 1-4-1945 and 31-3-1946. The plaintiff alleged that he made the requisite supplies, but was not fully paid. According to him, a sum of Rs. 8,38,994/10/6 was still payable to him by the Union of India. He made several representations to the appellant for payment, as also for arbitration of the dispute by the General Officer Commanding in Chief, Headquarters, Eastern Command, Lucknow, who was the officer named in the contract as arbitrator to settle the differences arising between the parties under the arbitration clause of the contract. By his letter dated 10-7-1958, which was served on the plaintiff on 15-7-1958, the G...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »