Allahabad Court August 1964 Judgments
Maya Ram Vs. Sant Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All409
D.S. Mathur, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115, Civil P. C., by Maya Ram, plaintiff, against the order dated 28-4-1962 of the First Additional Munsit of Meerut, dismissing with costs his suit for delivery of possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act.2. The material facts of the case are that on 30-9-1959 Maya Ram, plaintiff, instituted the present-suit against Sant Ram and others for a permanent injunction to restrain defendants Nos. 1 to 6 from interfering with his possession over the Kotha detailed in the plaint. On the request of the plaintiffs-commission was issued to find out as to who was in. possession and the Commissioner visited the spot on 2-10-1959, though he submitted his report dated 20-10-1959 somewhat late. The plaintiff was, according to him, dispossessed from the Kotha on 9-10-1959 after the Commissioner had visited the spot. He, therefore, applied for amendment of the plaint including the reliefs sought for. The amended relief was for delivery of p...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Prasad Agarwal Vs. Income-tax Officer, Dist. Iii(iv), Kanpur a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1964
Reported in: [1965]57ITR633(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution. The relief is for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the Tax Recovery Officer, Kanpur, and the Tahsildar/Magistrate, Income-tax, Kanpur, from taking any further steps for the delivery of possession of house No. 30/137 Ghumni Mohal, Kanpur, to the auction purchaser in pursuance of the auction held on September 4, 1963.The facts leading up to this petition are these :The petitioner is the grandson and the sole executor of the last will and testament of one Channalal Dalal, who died on September 15, 1963, at Kanpur. Before Channalals demise there were income-tax dues outstanding against him amounting to Rs. 27,455.71 nP. On 27th September, 1961, a prohibitory order was issued by the Additional Collector and District Magistrate, Kanpur, to Shri Channalal Dalal, the assessee, who was alive on that date, informing him 'that in default of payment of the income-tax dues house No...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Kundan Lal Vs. Shamshad Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1966All225
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal from the decree of the Civil fudge, Meerut, allowing the landlords' claim for arrears of rent at a rate higher than that allowed by the trial Court, The appellant Dr. Kundan Lal was a tenant of a shop of which Shamshad Ahmad and others were the landlords. It is common ground that a portion of the shop was demolished by the Municipal Board in September 1956 and the rest of it demolished in September 1958, with the result that between September 1956 and September 1958 the tenant was deprived of the use of a portion of the shop and after September 1958 totally deprived. It is also common ground that he did not exercise his option under Section 108(e) of Transfer of Property Act of treating the lease as void after the shop had been demolished.2. The landlords filed a suit for the ejection of the appellant and for arrears of rent and claimed the rent also for the period when the shop had been partially and later totally demolished. The appe...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Sami and anr. Vs. Mohammad Noor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1966All39
Dhavan, J. 1. This is a landlords' appeal from a decree of the Civil Judge of Moradabad dismissing' their suit for the ejectment of the tenant. The plaintiff-appellants alleged in their plaint that they had let out a plot of land to the defendant-respondent Mohammad Noor on a rent of Rs. 3 p.m. and the respondent used the land for carrying on business, of selling fuel wood on it; that the respondent had not paid the rent for several months; that the appellants had determined the tenancy by serving a notice on the respondent to quit within thirty days; that he bad not vacated the land hence the suit. The appellants asked for a decree for arrears of rent and the ejectment of the respondent. 2. The defendant resisted the suit. He denied that he had defaulted in payment of rent and also contended that the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid. 3. In view of the arguments addressed to me in this appeal it is necessary to mention the issues framed by the trial Court. These were as follo...
Tag this Judgment!Habib Ahmad Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All344
Desai, C. J. 1. This is an appeal from an order of our brother Dwivedi refusing to quash by certiorari a notification issued under Section 4 and a declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is not alleged in the petition that there was any defect in either of them. The notification issued under Section 4 had to be published in the official gazette and was admittedly so published. The Collector also had to give public notice of its substance at convenient places in the locality and it is not alleged that he did not do so. The notification mentioned that certain land was acquired for a public purpose. The statement in the notification that it was required for a public purpose was conclusive and could not be challenged even on the ground of mala fides. There was therefore, nothing illegal or detective in the notification issued under Section 4 and no case was made out for its being quashed. 2. It was contended before us that the Collector did not comply with the dire...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Prasad Vs. State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All240; 1965CriLJ664
ORDERSatish Chandra, J. 1. This is an application under Section 561-A Cr. P. C., which prays that this Court may, in the ends or Justice, order that criminal Revision No. 1247 of 1964 (Ganga Prasad v. State and another) be heard at Allahabad and be not sent to the Lucknow Bench of the High Court.2. The petitioner filed the criminal revision on 3-8-1964, before the Bench entertaining fresh matters at Allahabad. The same day the record was ordered to be summoned. Next day the petitioner deposited the costs of summoning the record which was accepted by the office of the Court.3. It appears that on 5-8-1964 the Hon'ble the Chief Justice passed the following order on the criminal revision:'List the case before the Lucknow Bench for order. Transfer it to Lucknow.'On 10-8-1964 the petitioner filed the present application. It states that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has passed the following administrative order on 29-7-1964:'Lucknow Bench exists for trying cases pertaining to Oudh and even if...
Tag this Judgment!Badshahmal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All486; 1965CriLJ451
ORDERSatish Chandra, J.1. The Applicaut has been convicted under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 900/-2. The applicant was selling aerated water named Vimto. The Public Analyst found that this stated water contained Saccharin though the exact quantity present was not determined. The applicant has been convicted mainly on the ground that addition of Saccharin to the aerated water was specifically ' prohibited under the Act, and as such the aerated water was adulterated.3. Two provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are relevant to decide the controversy raised in this revision. Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, under which the applicant has been convicted, provides that if any personsells 'any article of food' in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act' or any rule made thereunder, he shall be punished as prescribed by that section. Since the applicant has been convicted for selling aerated water cal...
Tag this Judgment!S. B. Singar Singh and Sons Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahab ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR626(All)
This is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution. The relief claimed is for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the Income-tax Tribunal to consider the ground of computation of standard profits as was raised in the excess profit tax appeals but which inadvertently remained undisposed of. The facts leading up to this petition are thes :The petitioner was assessed to excess profits tax for the chargeable accounting periods ending on March 31, 1945, and March 31, 1946, by two assessment orders dated August 26, 1949. According to the said assessment the petitioner was assessed to excess profits tax to the tune of Rs. 1,06,181.5 and Rs. 48,978 for the above chargeable accounting periods respectively. In the excess profits tax assessment order, according to the petitioner, the Excess Profits Tax Officer had failed to make adjustments for capital variation in the standard period and the chargeable accounting periods as required by section 6 of the Excess Profi...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Deokishan Srigopal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Formerly Dominion of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1966All16
Gyanendra Kumar, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the decree of the First Additional Civil Judge, Banaras, whereby out of a claim of Rs. 6,436-14-0 only a sum of Rs. 2,939 was decreed and the rest was dismissed. The plaintiff has, therefore, filed the instant appeal about the balance of its claim.2. There is no controversy about the facts in this case. The plaintiff-firm Deokishan Srigopal carried on whole-sale cloth business at Banaras and was also appointed as importer of cloth for the district of Banaras and in that capacity used to import cloth from places outside the Uttar Pradesh. The dispute relates to ten items of consignment which were booked from four places situate in the Bombay Presidency, which were served by the Great Indian Peninsula Railway and Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway, hereinafter called the G.I.P.R. and B. B. and C. I. R., respectively. Admittedly the destination station was Banaras situate on the East Indian Railway. There is also no dispute ...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarnath Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All233; 1965CriLJ539
ORDERSatish Chandra, J. 1. This is a revision by one Kedar Nath against his conviction under Section 409, I. P. C. and sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment.2. In the district of Deoria there is a Cooperative Federation at a place known as Bodarwar. In the beginning of the year 1958 the Federation resolved to run a brick-kiln and by resolution No. 3 dated 13-1-1958 the Federation resolvedinter-alia that a Manager and a Chaukidar beengaged for running the brick-kiln (Vide page 24of the Minute Book Ex. VIII). On 23-1-1958 byresolution No. 4 (Ex.Ka.16) the Federation decidedto appoint Kedar Nath, the applicant, as Manageron a monthly salary of Rs. 55/-. The Federationheld a meeting on 1-3-1958 in which it appointeda committee for the supervision of the brick-kilnby resolution No. 5-B. This committee consistedof several gentlemen other than the applicant, theManager. This resolution also stated that theentire responsibility in respect of the brick-kilnshall be of the Manager as we...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »