Allahabad Court October 1965 Judgments
Mohammad Rafiq Khan Vs. B.M. Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All88
ORDERK.B. Asthana, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari for quashing of an order dated 30-6-1960 of Sri B. M. Singh, Settlement Officer, Consolidation, by which the petitioner has been found to be guilty of an offence under Section 228 I. P. C. and has, been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in default of payment of fine to simple imprisonment for a period of one month.2. Sri B. M. Singh, Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 30-6-1960 as an appellate authority was busy in hearing the appeals in an open grove in village Banahra, police station Sarpatha, district Jaunpur and when the case of Smt. Sharifan appellant came up for hearing, the petitioner started, to argue the case on her behalf. Thereupon Sri B. M. Singh enquired from the petitioner as to who he was. This lead to some unpleasant remarks. This is the version of the petitioner. The version of Sri B. M. Singh on the other hand as In the happening on 30-6-196.0, is that whil...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Ratan Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1120
H.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. This appeal, by the State of Uttar Pradesh, has been directed against an order of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Etawah, in a case under Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules.2. The facts of the case lie in a short compass.3. On the 1st of March, 1963, the Central Government promulgated an Order called 'the Essential Articles (Price Control) Order, 1863' which, inter alia, provided that:Every dealer shall cause to be prominently displayed on a special board to be maintained for this purpose at or near the entrance to the place of sale:(a) a list of essential articles held by him from time to time in stock for ready delivery;(b) the past price of each such article; and(c) the price at which he proposes to sell that article.4. On 25.3.1963, under a warrant issued by a Magistrate the shop of the respondent, who is a dealer in vegetable products and washing soaps etc., was searched and it was found that he had stocked a number of Dalda...
Tag this Judgment!Binod Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1965
Reported in: [1966]62ITR424(All)
MANCHANDA, J. - This is a case stated under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Four questions have been referred to this court :'1. Whether the profit on estimated sales of 4 lakhs made to the Government under the tender system accrued or arose to the company in British India in whole or in part under section 4(1) (c) of the Act.2. Whether the profit on sales of Rs. 5,59,918 during the calendar year 1942 and of Rs. 3,40,161 in the calendar year 1939 made to merchants in British India through brokers accrued or arose in whole or in part to the company in British India within the meaning of section 4(1) (c) of the Ac ?3. Whether the company received profits in British India, within the meaning of section 4(1) (a) of the Act, when it received sale proceeds of Rs. 77,608 in the calendar year 1942 and of Rs. 49,969 in the calendar year 1939 of its goods through banks in British India, who acted as the companys agents for that purpose ?4. Whether the profit of Rs. 38,795 on Go...
Tag this Judgment!Bhojai Vs. Salim Ullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All221
Gangeshwar Prasad, J.1. This is an appeal by a de fendant, and it arises out of a suit for selling aside a final decree passed under Order XXXIV, Rule 5. C P C and the execution proceedings based thereon which terminated in the auction sale of a house belonging to the plaintiff, on the ground of fraud.2. The house was purchased by Hayat Ullah plaintiff on 10-11-1937. Adjoining this house is a house owned by Sakhawat Ali and Hashmat Ali defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who arebrothers. These houses are situate within the municipal limits of Allahabad. Formerly, both these houses were designated by one single municipal number, i.e.. No. 136, but later the house in dispute was described as No. 136-A and the house owned by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 as No. 136 in the municipal records. Defendant No. 1, the Municipal Board of Allahabad, brought suit No. 174 of 1943 at Allahabad for the recovery of Rs. 16-12-0 as arrears of house and water taxes in respect of the houses against the plaintiff and defenda...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Food Controller and anr. Vs. Hazari Mal Radha Kishan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All272
Dayal, J. 1. This is a reference by the learned Single Judge in a writ Two questions have been referred to this Court (1) whether the provisions of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply upon the reversal ofan order (made) under Article 226 of the Constitution, and (2) Whether an application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be made before the Court which decided the case in the first instance of must be made before the Court to which the execution of the decree was transferred by that Court?2. The first question was referred to a larger Bench because there was a conflict between two decisions of this Court. In Brij Lal v. State of U. P. : AIR1958All621 a Division Bench of this Court held that the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution may be a civil jurisdiction depending upon the nature of the rights decided in the writ, while in Khurjawala Buckles Manufacturing Co. v. Commr. Sales Tax U. P. : AIR1965All517 another Divi...
Tag this Judgment!Sridhar Prasad Nigam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1965
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ38All
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. Writ Petition No. 1882 of 1964 has been filed by Sridhar Prasad Nigam, while Writ Petition No. 3054 of 1964 has been filed by Hashmat Ali Khan. In the first writ. petition the respondents are the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Collector of Kanpur. In the second writ petition the sole respondent is the State of Uttar Pradesh. Since common questions of law have been raised in both the petitions, they may conveniently be disposed of together.2. Sridher Prasad Nigam (hereinafter referred to as Nigam) was a member of the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Civil Service (Executive), His date of birth, as alleged in the petition, is 14 January 1909. On 16 January 1964. Sri Nigram received an order dated 13 January 1964, which reads as follows:In exercise of the powers under Para, (f) of proviso 1 to Clause (a) of Fundamental Rule 56. Financial Handbook, Vol. II, Parts II to IV, as amended by the notification No. G-1. 194A/X 534 (19) 57, dated 19 October 1963, the Governor of Uttar P...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Baijnath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR626(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - This is a statement of case submitted under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, partly the instance of the assessee and partly at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. It arises out of an order passed by the Tribunal on June 27, 1959, in respect of assessment of the assessee to income-tax for the assessment year 1948-49, the accounting been framed by the Tribunal and are to be answered by us are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt of Rs. 35,01,000 constituted income liable to tax under section 10 of the Income-tax ?(2) Whether it was competent to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to invoke the provisions of section 12B for the assessment of Rs. 35,01,000 when the Income-tax Officer has assessed the amount under section 10 of the Income-tax Act ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt of Rs. 35,01,000 was tax...
Tag this Judgment!Masi Ullah Vs. State Tribunal Appellate and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All128
ORDERG.D. Sahgal, J.1. These two writ petitions raise a common question of law and so they have been heard together.2. The petitioner in writ petition No. 581 of 1963 held a stage carriage permit on the Lucknow-Tikaitganj Babaganj route. He applied for the renewal of his permit and by a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, opposite party No. 2 dated the 7th of March,1962. It was allowed to be renewed for a further period of three years on condition that the petitioner shall place 1952 model or later model on the route.3. The petitioner of writ petition No. 582 of 1963 also was the holder of a permanent stage carriage permit on the Lucknow-Mall route. In his case also at the time of the renewal of the permit a condition was imposed on the 7th of March, 1962 by the opposite party No. 2, the Regional Transport Authority, that he shall place 1960 or later model on the route.4. Both the petitioners made appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, opposite party No. 1. But ...
Tag this Judgment!Debi Prasad and anr. Vs. Chhotey Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All438
Lakshmi Prasad, J. 1. This is a defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit for cancellation and possession.2. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by one Chhotey Lal and his wife Smt. Tulsa. The defendants in the suit, who are appellants, are Debi Prasad and his wife Smt. Bitti. Debi Prasad is admittedly a grandson of the own brother of Chhotey Lal. During the pendency of this appeal both Chhotey Lal and Smt, Tulsa died. Smt. Tulsa died leaving Chhotey Lal as her sole heir and on the death of Chhotey Lal respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have been impleaded as his heirs.3. The suit was filed on the allegation that in November 1954 when Smt. Tulsa fell ill appellant No. 1 offered his help to the plaintiffs who were old, infirm and weak and had none to look after them. They accordingly welcomed the help of Debi Prasad appellant No. 1 and sometime thereafter they agreed to execute a will in respect of their only property, namely the house in dispute, with the result that on 17th Decem...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Pd. Srivastava Vs. Divisional Superintendent, Northern Rly. and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All457; (1970)ILLJ404All
ORDERW. Broome, J.1. This writ petition filed by Suraj Pd. Srivastava challenging an order passed by the Divisional Superintendent of the Northern Railway, Lucknow, on 6-2-1961, dismissing him from railway service on the conclusion of a departmental inquiry. The petitioner was employed as a school teacher in the Loco-shed at Faizabad and had incidentally been elected to the post of the Divisional Treasurer of the Lucknow Division branch of the Northern Railway Men's Union. Departmental proceedings were taken against him on account of the part played by him in organising the threatened railway servants, strike in July 1960. The charges found proved against him in the inquiry have set forth in the dismissal order (Annexure J.) and are as follows:--'(i) At Faizabad Loco Shed on 4-7-1960 you addressed a gate meeting criticising the Government for not negotiating with the leaders of employees and urged the employees to go on strike from 11-7-1960. (ii) At Faizabad on 7-7-1960 you were promi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »