Allahabad Court November 1965 Judgments
Bhola Rai Vs. the Superintendent, District Jail Ghazipur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All77; 1967CriLJ146
Tripathi, J.1. These petitions under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the orders dated 1st of August, 1965, which are similar in nature and passed by the Government of India under Rule 30, Sub--rule (1), Clause (b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, raise common questions of law and facts and can be conveniently disposed of together.2 The undisputed facts which are relevant to the questions in controversy are stated briefly.3. The petitioners are active members of tile Communist Party in India. They were first arrested and detained in various jails in the State of Uttar Pradesh in pursuance of the orders passed in the name of Governor of Uttar Pradesh under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules. In the case of some of these petitioners the order of detention was reviewed by the authorities and their detention was continued.4. A number of writ petitions were filed in this Court challengin...
Tag this Judgment!Dudh Nath Vs. Sat NaraIn Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All315
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. The question refer red to this Full Bench is as follows:-- 'Whether an alienation of ancestral joint family property by a Hindu father is not binding on his son if it was made for inadequateconsideration, even if there was legal necessity In order to answer it correctly, it would be necessary to give in short the facts and the circumstances which have given rise to the question. 2. The appellant, Dudh Nath, filed the suit giving rise to this appeal for possession over the property described at the foot of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the property in dis pute) on the allegations that the plaintiff his brother, Pashupati Nath, defendant No. 3. and their father, Panna Ram, formed a joint Hindu family which was possessed of ancestral property including the property in dispute and that Panna Ram without any legal necessity first executed a mortgage deed in respect of the property in dispute without consideration and later on on 25-7-1927 sold it to Antu Ram fo...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Surendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All455
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. This special appeal by Sardar Surendra Singh is directed against the judgment of Oak, J. dated 8-14963, dismissing writ petition No. 1566 of 1961 filed by the appellant.2. There is a route Meerut-Chhaprauli (hereinafter referred to as route No. 1). This route is divided into three parts (1) Meerut-Baghpat, (2) Baghpat-Baraut, and (3) Baraut-Chhaprauli. The portion Baghpat-Baraut forms part of another routes also, that is, Delhi-Saharanpur route (hereinafter referred to as route No. 2). There is yet a third route Dehradun-Luchman Jhoola route (hereinafter referred to as route No 3).3. The Delhi-Saharanpur route was nationalised under the provisions of Chap. IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). When the notification under Section 68-C of the Act was issued in respect of this route, it was proposed to place some restriction on the right of the appellant to pick up passengers between Baghpat and Baraut, though the appellant was to he allo...
Tag this Judgment!J. P. Srivastava and Sons (Rampur) Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of In ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1965
Reported in: [1966]62ITR662(All)
MANCHANDA, J. - This is a case stated under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The two questions referred are :'(1) Whether, having regard to the language of section 23A of the Income-tax Act, on the failure to mention in the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer, the fates on which the dividends are to be deemed to have been distributed, the orders are vitiated and illegal ?(2) Whether for the purpose of ascertaining that the assessee-company had distributed the statutory percentage of dividend a prescribed under section 23A, the book profits less taxes thereon should be taken into consideration or the assessable profits less taxes thereon should be taken into consideration ?'The material facts are these. The assessee is a private limited company incorporated in Rampur. Rampur was an Indian State which merged with the Union of India on July 1, 1949. The relevant previous years are the years ending December 31, 1946, December 31, 1947, December 31, 1948, and December 3...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Mazdoor Biri Co. Vs. Industrial Tribunal Iii and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All568; (1969)IILLJ598All
ORDERD.D. Seth, J.1. By this ptition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner company (hereinafter called the company' prays for the quashing of the award dated 26th April 1961 of the Industrial Tribunal III. U P Allahabad.2. The facts of the case in brief as contained in the petition, are that the company carries on the business of manufacture of biris. The company suffered some losses in the years 1958-59 and 1959-60 The company did not, therefore, distribute any bonus to the workmen for these two years. The workmen raised a dispute and claimed that bonus be paid to them3. The State Government by an order dated 25th October 1960 referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal III. U. P.. Allahabad (hereinafter called the Tribunal):'Matter of Dispute. Should the employers be required to pay any bonus to their workmen for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60? If so at what rate and with what other details'?'4. The dispute was registered and the parties filed their writte...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. the Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All248; [1967]65ITR386(All)
ORDERSatish Chandra, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It prays that notices dated 6th February, 1964 and 7th July, 1964 issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 23-A of the Income Tax Act, 1922 be quashed and the respondents be prohibited from taking any further proceedings in virtue of the aforesaid notices. The question raised by this petition is as to the true nature and character of an order under Section 23-A of the Income-tax Act.2. Messrs. J.K. Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Kanpur is the petitioner. It is Public Limited Company. It carries on the business of re-rollers, steel fabricators and foundry men and manufacturers of Hydraulic crancrushers. It also derives income from dividends and interest from stock. The petitioner is not a Company in which the public is substantially interested within meaning of Section 28-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The petition relates to the assessment year 1956-57, the accounting period ending on 30th April, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Singh Vs. Attar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All488
B. Dayal, J. 1. These are two connected appeals both arising out of two suits filed by Attar Singh against Mahendra Singh and Jeet Singh referred to this bench by a learned Single Judge. Both the suits Nos. 145 of 1954 and 333 of 1964 were heard together. The former suit No. 145 of 1954 was treated as the main suit. The allegation of the plaintiff was that the sale deed executed by his adoptive father Jeet Singh in favour of Mahendra Singh was without legal necessity, without consideration and was in respect of the joint family property in which he was also interested as the adopted son and the sale deed was, therefore, invalid. There were proceeding under Section 146, Cr P.C. and the agricultural plots and their crop had been attached in criminal proceedings. The second suit was, therefore, filed for a declaration that the attached property, namely, the crop belonged to the plaintiff and was liable to be released in favour of the plaintiff. The defence taken to both these suits was th...
Tag this Judgment!The Lucknow Officials' Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Registrar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All305
ORDERJ. Sahai, J.1. The petitioner, the Lucknow Officials' Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Lucknow, (hereinafter referred to as the Society) is a primary society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent no. 4, Sri Bindeshwari Prasad Bajpai, (hereinafter referred to as Bindeshwari Prasad) is a member of the Society. The Society had obtained on lease some land situate on the Ashok Kumar Marg (formerly known as Outram Road). The land was divided into several plots one of which was allotted to Sarvasri Bindeshwari Prasad and R.K Bajpai jointly. The plot was, however, not actually demarcated at the spot. A little later the State Government suspended the housing scheme mentioned above and framed a modified scheme. After the framing of the modified scheme, the lease granted to Bindeshwari Prasad and R.K. Bajpai was terminated by the Society and another plot was leased out to Bindeshwari Prasad alone on the condition that he wou...
Tag this Judgment!Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Ram Asrey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All4
W. Boroome, J.1. These six special appeals (three fleid by Messrs. Synthetics and Chamicals Ltd. and three by the State of U. P.) are directed against a decision of Satish Chandra J., dated 29-3-1965, by which three writ petitions (Nos. 952,1161 and 1620 of 1961) were disposed of by a common judgment, and it will be convenient to deal with them together.2. The petitioners in the three writ petitions are the cultivators of various plots of land in the villages of Madhopur Muafi, Nowgaon, Bitaura, Fatehganj West and Kurtara (district Bareilly, which are being acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for a Synthetic rubber factory to be set up by Messrs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd Originally a combined notification under Sections 2 and 17(4) of the Act was issued on 2-4-1960 (published in the Gazette of 9-4-1960), followed by another notification dated 4-4 1960 under Section 40(2) of the Act, appointing the S. D O., (II) of Bareilly to hold the inquiry that is necessary in the case of ac...
Tag this Judgment!Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1965
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas20(All)
D.S. Mathur, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 17 of the Companies Act, 1956, of Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Limited (to be referred hereinafter as the company) for confirmation of the alteration to the memorandum of association of the company.2. The company was registered on the 7th of February, 1931, under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, as a company limited by shares with its registered office at Kanpur. The objects for which the company was formed are set out in Clause 3 of the memorandum of association. Even though the company was named Jute Mills company and is running the business of jute, it can, under the memorandum of association, carry on many businesses not connected with jute.3. It was recently that the directors of the company desired to manufacture goods of natural rubber, synthetic rubber and reclaim rubber, after a sister concern, J. & K. Commercial Corporation Ltd., obtained a letter of intent for industrial licence from the Government ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »