Allahabad Court May 1965 Judgments
Gyan Chand Bhatia Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All57
Desai, C.J.1. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari for the quashing of an order passed by a Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Opposite Party No. 1) directing the order of an accommodation to let it to opposite party No. 2 who will be referred to as 'the opposite party', a notice issued by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 7-A (1) of the (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act calling upon the petitioner to vacate the accommodation within a certain time and an order passed by him under Section 7-A (2) rejecting his reply to the notice and calling upon him to vacate within three days and threatening to use force to evict him in default.2. The petition came up for hearing before our brother Jagdish Sahai who referred the following question to a Division Bench because the decision of V.D. Bhargava, J. in Syed Kasim Husain v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad. 1960 All LJ 546, required reconsideration--'Whether the remedy of a revision applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Jageshwar Prasad Vs. Shyam Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All125
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a landlord's second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the courts below dismissing his suit for the recovery of rent from the defendant respondent. It raises an important question of law concerning the application of the principle of res judicata to the findings of a Court of Small Causes. The appellant Jageshwar Prasad filed this suit against Shyam Behari Lal for the recovery of Rs. 1440 as arrears of rent on the basis of an agreement of tenancy. The defendant resisted the suit and denied that there was any contract of tenancy between him and the plaintiff. He also raised a number of other pleas which it is not necessary to consider in this appeal. The plaintiff contended that the finding of the Small Cause Court, in his previous suit for the recovery of rent from the defendant for an earlier period, that there was an agreement of tenancy between, the parties, operated as res judicata in the present suit and the defendant could not be permitted to deny t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sukhni and anr. Vs. Smt. Sukhbasi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All423
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the courts below dismissing their suit for partition of certain holdings and for damages against the defendant-respondents for cutting away the crops sown by the plaintiffs. The facts which are common ground or found by the court below are these. The first plaintiff appellant. Smt. Sukhni is the mother of the second, Smt. Patti. They are the widow and daughter of one Sita Ram, and claim the land in dispute as his heirs. It is common ground that Sita Ram was the fixed-rate tenant to the extent of a half-share in the holdings in dispute. He died in or about the year 1945-46, and left, in addition to his widow and daughter, a mother, Smt. Sukhbasi, who is the first defendant in the suit. At the time of his death the daughter Smt. Patti was about 3 years old. Within a year of his death Smt. Sukhni married again. It is not clear what happened to her daughter after her mother had re-married whether she con...
Tag this Judgment!Raj NaraIn Saxena Vs. Bhim Sen and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All84
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. This revision has been referred to a Full Bench by our brothers Oak and Seth who were of opinion that a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Nur Muhammad v. Jamil Ahmad, AIR 1919 All 213, requires reconsideration.2. There is no controversy about the facts in the case. Opposite Party No. 1, who being the contesting opposite party will be referred to as the opposite party in this judgment, filed against the applicant a suit as a pauper under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure by applying for permission to sue as a pauper in theCourt of a Munsif. The application was apparently in proper form and was presented by the opposite party in person. Under Rule 1 of Order 33 any suit may be instituted by a pauper and under Rule 2 every application for permission to sue as a pauper must contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits and under Rule 3 it must be presented 'to the Court' by the applicant in person. Where an application is in proper form...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gaindi Bai and ors. Vs. C.i.T.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All469; [1966]59ITR353(All)
ORDER1. This is a statement of a case submitted to this Court by the Income-tax Tribunal, Delhi Bench (C) at the assessee's instance inviting this Court to answer the following question: --Whether the share of loss from business carried on through Madho Lal Padam Prasad and Jeewan Lal Kailash Chand in 1949-50 and 1950-51 can be allowed to be carried forward and set off under Section 24(2) against profits through other firms which were continued from earlier years and through a new firm Kailash Chand Tara Chand where business done through the various firms was business in the same commodities and of similar nature The assesses is a Hindu undivided Family and carried on business as a partner in several firms. Upto 1050-51 it was a partner in five firms. (1) Madholal Chiranjilal, (2) Madholal Phool Chand, (3) Madholal Sualal, (4) Madholal Padam Prasad and (5) Jiwanlal Kailash Chand. In the accounting year relevant to 1949-50 assessment year three of the firms showed a loss and two earned ...
Tag this Judgment!Diwan Sugar and General Mills (Private) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Utt ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ706All
R.S. Pathak, J.1. Petitioner 1 has a factory in which it employs a large number of workers. Under the Uttar Pradesh Factories Welfare Officers Rules, the occupier of every factory wherein 500 or more workers are ordinarily employed is obliged to appoint a welfare officer. A welfare officer belongs to one of three grades-grade I where the factory ordinarily employs 2,500 or more workmen per day; grade II where the factory ordinarily employs from 1,000 to 2,499 workmen per day and grade III, where the factory ordinarily employs from 500 to 999 workmen per day. The petitioner appointed respondent 3, B. F. Singh, as welfare officers, and he was assigned grade III on the footing that the factory did not employ more than 999 workers per day. The Bald respondent subsequently represented that as the daily labour force ordinarily employed by the petitioner in Its factory had risen above 1,000, he was entitled to be placed In grade II. The Inspector of Factories visited the factory and, It appea...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Lal and anr. Vs. Firm Poonam Chand Manilal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All250
Oak, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a proceeding under Section 145, C. P. C. A. firm. Messrs. Sunder Lal Tikam Das of Bombay held against another firm Messrs. Padimchand and Company one decree. That was decree No 47 of 1954. In execution of that decree certain goods were attached. There was another decreeagainst Messrs, Padamchand and Company in favour of another firm Messrs. Pooran Ghana Mani Lal of Anmedabad. That was decree No. 1,482 of 1931. At the instance of Firm Pooran Chand Mani Lal of Ahmedabad, the same property was attacked. Attachment order was issued on 6-10-1935; and the notice of attachment was served on 15-16-1955 on Shyam Lal and Raja Ram, who had been appointed custodians by the Court in execution or decree No. 47 of 1954. In the meanwhile decree No. 47 of 1954 had been satisfied; and the order of attachment in decree No. 47 of 1954 was withdrawn on 12-10-1955. In view of the Supurdars' failure to produce the goods in question in execution of decree No. 1,462 o...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. the Cantonment Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All301
D.P. Uniyal, J.1. The respondent Cantonment Board of Agra levied property tax on a building occupied and used by the General Post Office, Agra in purported exercise of its power under the Cantonments Act. The notice demanding the tax not having been complied with a distress warrant was issued by the respondent on 20-10-1953 for recovery of Rs. 1891/- as property tax from the appellant, which then 'nstituted the present suit challenging the jurisdiction and power of the respondent Board to levy such tax and seeking an Injunction restraining the defendant from realising the same. 2. The principal ground upon which the assessment was challenged was that under Section 99(2) the Post Office building was exempt from any tax on property. The respondent Cantonment Board relied on the provisions of Section 88 which enacts that the order of an appellate authority confirming, setting aside or modifying an order in respect of any valuation or assessment, or liability to assessment or taxation, sha...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sheela Devi Kukreti Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR774(All)
The judgement of the court was delivered byMANCHANDA J. - This is a case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred is :'Whether, in the circumstances of the case the amount of Rs. 13,751 is assessable in the year 1951-52, or in the year 1952-53 The facts, according to the statment of the case submitted are as follows :The relevant assessment year is 1952-53, the previous year being the year ending 31st of October, 1951. The assessee is an individual. She is a forest contractor and maintains regular books account on the mercantile basis. During the year ending 31st October, 1950, i.e., she cut, inter alia, trees of the vlaue of Rs. 13,751 from the forests of which she had taken a contract. Before she could remove the timber an order was served upon her by the Divisional Forest Officer dated June 5, 1950, whereunder she was prohibited from removing and the burn...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Jagdish Puttoo Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All244; 1966CriLJ503
U.S. Srivastava, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Slate of U. P. against the judgment and order, dated 31st of August 1963 passed by Sri A P. Bhalnagur Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, acquitting the respondent of an offence under Section 302, I. P. C., for the allegedmurder of one Noor Mohammad alias Saktu, aged 55 years, on 30th August 1962 at 2.30 P.M. 2. It was alleged by the prosecution that both the respondent and the deceased lived in Bahdewan, Police Station Chowk, in the city of Lucknow, and they used to have monetary transactions between themselves. It is alleged that on 30th August 1962 at about 2.30 P.M. the respondent went to the house of the deceased and demanded money that was due to him from the deceased. The deceased was not in a position to pay back the money then and that led to an altercation between the two which resulted in exchange of hot words and abuses between them. The deceased's brother Wafati P. W. 1 and Bhallu P. W. 2 nephew of the deceased, intervened in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›