Allahabad Court January 1965 Judgments
Prabhat Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Babu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All134
D.P. Uniyal, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises under the following circumstances. The respondent had an overdraft account with the plaintiff Prabhat Bank, Ltd. since 1945. On 31st December 1946 the debit balance of the respondent rose to the extent of about Rs. 4,000 and on that date he executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 5,000 by way of security for repayment of the overdraft. On that very day the respondent executed a written agreement in favour of the appellant Bank and it was agreed that the respondent would be entitled to take advances upto the maximum of Rs. 5,000 upon his personal security, as well as collateral securities, to wit, stocks and shares pledged by the respondent with the appellant Bank. One of the terms of: the agreement was that the appellant Bank would be entitled to sell the securities without any notice to the respondent in the event of the loan not being repaid on demand. On 9-10-1947 the appellant Bank informed the respondent that his security h...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kumar Mehrotra Vs. the Secretary Board of Technical Education ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All207
ORDERG.D. Sahgal, J.1. Though the facts of the cases arising out of these three writ petitions are somewhat different one from the other yet as they raise some common questions of law they have been heard together and will be disposed of by a common judgment. Surendra Kumar Mehrotra is the petitioner in writ petition No. 461 of 1964. The opposite-parties are the Secretary, Board of Technical Education, the Principal, Hewett Polytechnic, Mahanagar, and the Examination Committee of the Board of Technical Education, U. P. The Opposite parties in the other two writ petitions are also the same but while the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 162 of 1964 is Surendra Pal Singh, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 463 of 1964 is Pramod Swamp Tandon.2. All the petitioners appeared at the II year examination of Electrical Engineering of the Board of Technical Education in 1964. Their Examination centre was Government Polytechnic at Latouche Road, Lucknow. On the 30th of April, 1964 the examination ...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Mohammad Yasin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All320; 1967CriLJ833
H.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate, First Class, Aligarh. on the 11th of April, 1963, in a case under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. 2. The facts of the case lie in a short compass: Opposite party Mohammad Yasin entered India on the 15th of October, 1953, on the strength of a Pakistani passport dated the 2nd of October. 1953, and an Indian category C Visa dated the 7th of October. 1953 which was to remain valid up to the 6th of January, 1954. He however, continued to stay in India even beyond that period without getting the prescribed period extended in a proper manner Consequently he was arrested on the 20th of July, 1962, at about 10 a.m. in the city of Bareilly and was sent up for trial for having contravened paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, by his over stay and thus having made himself punishable under Section 14 of the Act. 3. At the trial the opposite party pleaded not guilty to the charge. His case was that h...
Tag this Judgment!Hirday NaraIn Yogendra Prakash Vs. Income-tax Officer, A-ward, Bareill ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1965
Reported in: [1965]58ITR828(All)
A Hindu undivided family carried on business under the name and style of Messrs. Hirday Narain Yogendra Prakash at Bareilly. The family suffered partition, and an application under section 25A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was allowed by the Income-tax Officer who recognised the partition with effect from November 19, 1949. The erstwhile members of the family entered into a partnership for carrying on the business hitherto belonging to the family. This business was carried on by the partnership under the same name and style. The partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') was registered under section 26A for the assessment year 1951-52. Certain changes were effected in the constitution of the firm, and for the assessment year 1953-54 an application was made by the reconstituted firm for registration under section 26A. The Income-tax Officer, however, made an order on February 5, 1955, refusing to recognise these changes and declined, therefore, to grant registration. An...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranji Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1965
Reported in: [1965]56ITR715(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is a consolidated case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in respect of six applications made by the applicant, Chiranji Lal, under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act of 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act.Five questions of law have been referred for the opinion of this court, but out of these only three are passed. They are :1. Whether there was any material to justify the view that the income from business could be treated as income of the Hindu undivided family of which Chiranji Lal was the karta ?2. Whether there was any justification in law in making a joint assessment of the share incomes of Chiranji Lal, Rameshwar Prasad and Om Prakash and the income from property received by the Hindu undivided family headed by Shri Chiranji Lal ?3. Whether the Tribunal could direct the authorities below to change the status of the assessee from individual to Hindu undivided family ?The facts are that one Pooran Chand ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. H.L. Sahgal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All292; 1967CriLJ681
H.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by a Magistrate, 1st class, Allahabad, in a case under Section 27(b) of the Drugs Act, 1940. 2. The facts of the case lie in a short compass. Opposite party is the proprietor of M/s Sahagal Stores, 15 B/Elgin Road, Allahabad, which is a chemist shop dealing in medicines. He held a drug licence No. 20A/37 for dealing in drugs which admittedly expired on 10th of June, 1962. On 23rd of June, 1962, the Drugs Licencing Authority issued notice Ex. Ka 2 to the opposite party informing him that as the period of his drug licence has expired he should deposit the necessary fee and submit an application in the prescribed form for its renewal. This notice was undoubtedly served on the opposite party as is apparent from his explanation dated 30th of November, 1962. Ex. Ka 5 which he sent to the show cause notice dated 28th of November, 1962. In spite of this notice, however, the applicant did not apply for the renewal of...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Shatranjai Vs. Azmat Azim Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All109
Desai, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of our brother Beg by which he quashed part of an order passed by the Board of Revenue. The father of the respondent was a zamindar of several villages including villages Rahimnagar Grant and Moondasawaran and had mortgaged the two villages with the appellant. On the enforcement of the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act the respondent applied for the benefit of the Act. The Special Judge passed a decree in the appellant's favour in respect of the mortgage sometime in 1941 and transmitted it to the Deputy Commissioner for execution. He also transmitted a list of the property belonging to the respondent which was liable to attachment or sale in execution of the decree. The liquidation proceedings became protracted on account of appeals from various orders and proceedings for reduction of the decretal amount under the Zamindars Debt Reduction Act. With effect from 1-7-1952 the proprietary rights in the two villages of the respondent vested in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiam Sunder Lal Vs. Durga and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All185
S.C. Manchanda, J.1. These two appeals raise common contentions and they are disposed of by a single order. They are against the order of the District Judge dated, the 21st April, 1962 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated, the 3rd May 1960, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance of the contract dated the 25th March 1955 and directing the defendant to execute the deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff and to get it registered within one month from the date of the decrees after taking from the plaintiffs the balance ofthe purchase money and in default the deeds of sale would be executed by the Court on behalf of the defendant after the plaintiffs have deposited the balance of the purchase money within the time to be specified,2. The plaint allegations were that the defendant was the owner and the Zamindar of the plots in dispute lying within the Municipal Limits of the town of Meerut. That the chief tenant was one Moti of all these plots who had s...
Tag this Judgment!Babu and ors. Vs. Bohre Ram Ratan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All264
S.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal from the decree of the Addl. Civil Judge of Mathura dismissing their suit for an injunction to restrain the defendant-respondent Ram Ratan from interfering with their possession of a house situate in Sadabad. district Mathura. The original plaintiff was one Mst. Idu, but after her death the present plaintiffs were substituted as her heirs and legal representatives. The facts are these: Mst. Idu inherited from her father a four anna share in the house in dispute, the remaining shares being inherited by a brother and a sister. Idu had four sons and three daughters. During her lifetime three of these sons purported to sell the entire house to one Bataso who in turn sold it to Ram Ratan who is the principal defendant in the case. It goes without saying that these three sons had no right or interest even in her share, not to speak of the entire house and the transaction was obviously void and of no effect. Mst. Bataso the first transfer...
Tag this Judgment!Auto Sales Vs. Smt. Shushila Sinha and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All278
S.C. Manchanda, J.1. This is a revision by the plaintiff against the order of the Civil Judge dated the 18th of September 1963, releasing the house from attachment under the provisions of Order 38 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The plaintiff had filed a suit on the 19th of March 1963, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 69,000 against Mr. J. N. Sinha opposite party No. 2. On the same date an application under Order 38 Rule 5 of the C. P. C. was filed praying for attachment of the only house possessed by the said opposite party No. 2 in Tagore Town. The house was attached and a notice issued. On the 5th of April 1953, Mrs. Sinha, the wife of the opposite party No. 2 filed an objection to the attachment on the ground that she was the owner of the said house in possession. The reply of the plaintiff applicant was that she was only a benamidar for her husband. The opposite parties did not go into the witness box. Evidence was given only by the brother of Mr. Sinha to order to prove the sou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »