Allahabad Court March 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.
Central Trading Agency Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1964
Reported in: [1965]56ITR561(All)
R. S. PATHAK J. - This is a reference at the instance of an assessee under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The assessee is a registered firm carrying on contract business in the supply of dehydrated vegetable products to the Government. During the course of its business the assessee undertook a contract to supply onions and potatoes to the Government of India. The contract was executed with the Director General of Food, New Delhi, in 1943, for the supply of 100 tons of dehydrated onions by December 31, 1943. The contract contained a clause stipulating that, in the event of the assessee failing to deliver supplies in accordance with the terms of the contract, it would be liable to a penalty of 2 annas per pound on the quantity which it failed to deliver by the due date, unless it failure was due to reasons beyond its control. The assessee was able to supply only about 15 tons of onions by December 31, 1943. As the entire contract was not executed by it within the time stipula...
Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1964
Reported in: [1964]54ITR229(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - This is a statement of case submitted under section 66(1) at the assessees instance by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal requiring this court to answer the following question :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and on a true interpretation of the provisions of caluse (ii) of sub-section 10 of the Income-tax Act, the assessee was entitled to deduction for the expenses of a capital nature included in the cost of repairs to the premises of which he was tenant ?'The statement shows that the assessee has taken a godown on rent for carrying on its business on condition that it will maintain and repair it. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year it cemented the floor of the godown, replaced its roof by corrugated sheets and replaced the electric wiring. It claimed the right to deduct the amounts spent on these three items when computing its income from the business. Its claim has been disallowed by the Tribunal on the ground that the expenditure...
Abdul Hai Qadir Bux Vs. Km. Azra Sikander
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All125; 1965CriLJ269
D.N. Nigam, J. 1. The petitioner Chowdhry Abdul Rai was ordered to pay maintenance to his daughter, Km. Azra Sikander alias Malka, at the rate of Rs. 20/- per mensem. Subsequently this amount at maintenance was increased to Rs. 25/- per mensem. On 18th July, 1963 he presented an application under Section 489, Code of Criminal Procedure seating that Kumari Azra Sikandar having attained majority was no longer entitled to a maintenance. The learned Magistrate rejected this application. The matter was taken in revision to the Sessions Judge, Lucknow. It came up for hearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow who rejected the application by judgment dated 23-11-1963. Now Chowdhry Abdul Hai has come up in revision to this Court. I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. S. B. L. Asthana, for the petitioner.2. The only question raised is regarding the meaning of the word 'child' in Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section provides.'If any person having suffici...
Brijmohan Lal Vs. Election Tribunal Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All450
Dhavan, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by a respondent in the election petition which is pending against him. It involves an important question of law--namely, whether a Tribunal constituted under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) has the power to review its orders like a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 or Section 151, Civil P. C. The facts are these. The petitioner Sri Brij Mohan Lal and the respondent Shankar Lal along with five other candidates contested the election to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 302 Randa Assembly Constituency in the general election of 1962. The polling took place on 25th February 1962 and the result was declared on the same day. The petitioner secured 9173 votes against the respondent Shanker Lal's 8903 and was elected by a majority of 270 votes. The votes of the other five candidates were respectively 5218 (Praja Socialist Party), 3...
Ram NaraIn Shukla and anr. Vs. J.O. Gyanpur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ268
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This matter has been referred to us under order of the Acting Chief Justice. We have been asked to consider whether Ram Narain Shukla, who has appeared before us in person, should be proceeded against for contempt of Court. It appears that in an application under Section 561-A of the Cr. P. C. he alleged that our learned brother S. K. Verma who had heard some matter involving Ram Narain Shukla was prejudiced against him and he did not want his case to be heard by him. He further alleged that an order passed by our brother Verma on 13th January 1964 was 'not free from malice'. This application was heard and dismissed by D. S. Mathur, J. on 16th January 1964. In the order dismissing the application the learned Judge observed that the applicant had cast aspersions on Mr. Justice Verma and it should be considered whether he should be punished for contempt. Accordingly the papers were laid before the Acting Chief Justice who has directed that the case be listed before us.2...
Naini Glass Works Vs. Collector, Central Excise and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All305
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. Messrs. Naini Glass works, Naini (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Collector), the Inspector, Central Excise, Sector II, Naini, Allahabad, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the inspector) and the Deputy Superintendent Central Excise, Allahabad, respondent No. 3, (hereinafter referred to as the Deputy Superintendent) with a prayer that a writ of mandamus be Issued commanding the respondents not to demand and recover from the petitioner any excise duty in excess of what has already been paid over tincture bottles cleared from the petitioner's factory between 12th September 1961 and 23rd November, 1961 and to decide the petitioner's application for refund of excise duty, charged in excess, over tincture bottles cleared between 1st March, 1961 and 12th of September, 1961 and to...
Gauri Shanker Prasad Rai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All436
ORDERD.D. Seth, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and arises out of the following circumstances. .2. The petitioner is the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Pandah, District Ballia, and is member of the Kshettra Samiti Pandah. Under Section 5 of the U. P. Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam 1961 (hereinafter called the Adhiniyam) the State Government, 'by a notification in the Gazette, established a Kshettra Samiti for Pandah Khand in July 1962. The composition of the Kshettra Samiti has been completed and the opposite party No. 5 to the petition has been elected as Pramukn of the Samiti.3. After the establishment of the Kshettra Samiti for Pandah Khand the Head Office of the Samiti, according to the petitioner, has been located in village Pandah and all the meetings of the Samiti have been held there. The petitioner contends that out of the villages comprised in the Khand, Pandah being situated on a pucca road, is most conveniently approachable from all the v...
Ram Surat Singh Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All49
Desai, C.J. 1. I agree with my brother S. K. Verma that the first question should be answered in the negative and the second, in the affirmative. I regret that I cannot agree with my learned brother Dwivedi. 2. The U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and victim Act, No. 3 of 1947 has been enacted 'to provide for the continuance during a limited period, of powers to control the letting and the rent ofresidential and non-residential accommodation andto prevent the eviction of tenants therefrom.' The letting is controlled through the provisions contained in Sections 7, 7-A, 7-D and 7-E, the rent is controlled through the provisions in Sections 4, 5 and 6 and eviction of tenants is prevented through the provisions in Sections 3, 7-C, 14 and 15. The preamble only explains why these provisions and other provisions have been enacted; it itself is not an enactment and is not required to be enforced by courts. What is to be enforced by the courts is the provisions contained in the Act and they ma...
N.C. Upadhya and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All356
ORDERD.D. Seth, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the constitution. 2. The petition has been filed by fifty petitioners, the first forty-nine petitioners are living in Bungalows Nos. 9 and 11, Bank Road, Allahabad and other outhouses and the petitioner No. 50 is the registered Co-operative Housing Society with its registered office at No. 11, Bank Road, Allahabad. Some of the petitioners are members of this Cooperative Housing Society. The opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 are the owners of the two bungalows. The erstwhile Improvement Trust, Allahabad, framed a scheme styled as 'Bank Road Housing Scheme' under Section 36 of the U. P. Town Improvement Act (hereinafter called the Act) in July 1957. The scheme was framed in order to provide additional housing accommodation in the vicinity of the University and the district Courts of Allahabad. For the purpose of the scheme it was proposed to acquire bungalows Nos. 9 and 11, Bank Road. These bungalows consist of an area of about si...
State Through Deputy Commissioner Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All451
N.U. Beg, J.1. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (Act No. 1 of 1961), hereinafter called 'the Act'. The said proceedings were taken against one Kedar Nath, who figures as opposite party No. 2 in this writ petition. The Act came info force on the 3rd January, 1961. The Act was promulgated primarily for the purpose of fixing the maximum area which a tenure-holder could hold in Uttar Pradesh. The Act constituted a 'Prescribed Authority' which was entitled to issue a notice to a tenure-holder calling upon him to submit a statement within thirty days of the notice disclosing the ceiling area to which the said tenure-holder was entitled under the Act. In the present case the notice in question was issued against Kedar Nath. In this notice the number of the members of the family of Kedar Nath was shown as five. Kedar Nath filed objections to this notice raising a number of pleas. The only plea however, with which we a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »