Allahabad Court August 1965 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Basti Sahkari Ganna Samiti Ltd. and anr. Vs. Suraj Nath Upadhyay and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All218
D.S. Mathur, J.1. This is an appeal by Basti Sahkari Ganna Samiti Limited, Basti, defendants, against the order dated 1-8-1964 of the Additional Civil Judge of Basti, allowing the appeal of Suraj Nath Upadhyay, plaintiff, and remanding the suit for hearing on merits in accordance with the law. The Munsif of Basti had dismissed the suit on the ground that it was not maintainable and was not cognizable by the civil Court; but the learned Civil Judge has taken a contrary view holding that a part of the suit was maintainable This necessitated the remand of the suit so that it may be heard and decided on merits.2. For purposes of this appeal it is not necessary to reproduce in this order the details of the past litigation in connection with the election of the Chairman and Directors of Basti Sahkari Ganna Samiti Limited Eventually Suraj Nath Upadhyay, plaintiff, filed his nomination papers for the post of the Chairman of Directors and also the post of a Director from Kshetra No. 6. Suraj Pr...
Mahboob Hasan and anr. Vs. Ram Bharosey Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All271
Oak, J. 1. The following two questions of law have been referred to us:-- 1. Whether a custom of pre-emption is void under Article 13 of the Constitution irrespective of the fact whether it gives a right of pre-emption to a shafi-i-sharik, a shafi-i-khalit or a shafi-i-jar? 2. Whether a custom of pre-emption is void under Article 13 of the Constitution in so far as it gives a right of pre-emption to a shafi-i-khalit who is merely the owner of an easementary right in the property sought to be pre-empted? 2. This reference has arisen out of two suits for pre-emption. Suit No. 584 of 1955 arose in district Bareilly. In that case Mohammad Nabi defendant, who was the owner of a certain house, sold it to Mahoob Hasan and Ayub Hasan, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for Rs. 500. Ram Bharosey Lal filed the suit for acquiring the property basing his claim on his right of pre-emption. The learned Munsif City Bareilly, dismissed the suit on the ground that the custom of pre-emption was hit by Article 13 ...
Kanpur Kapra Committee Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1965
Reported in: [1966]17STC10(All)
S.C. Manchanda, J.1. This is a case stated under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The material facts giving rise to this reference are these.2. In the year 1944 control was imposed on the import and distribution of cloth. The assessee-syndicate was constituted under the name and style of Kanpur Kapra Committee Syndicate to act as an importing agency through which the cloth was to be distributed to the retailers to be sold at controlled rates. The syndicate consisted of 92 wholesalers who fulfilled the condition of having been continuously in business during the basic years 1940 to 1944. No quota-holder could be a member of this syndicate unless he surrendered his 3% profits to the syndicate. The syndicate was allowed a margin of 3% profit in addition to the 3% margin of profit originally allowed to importers. The syndicate was debarred from handling the cloth physically. The cloth was to pass from the importing agency direct to the retailers, and the retailers, on depositing money...
British Indian Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All362; [1966]60ITR793(All)
Desai, C.J.1. This is a statement of case submitted to this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, inviting it to answer the following two questions:(1) 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the amount of Rs. 5,39,057/-was rightly disallowed under Rule 12 (1) of Schedule 1 of the Excess Profits Tax Act?' (2) 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the amount of Rupees 1,28,743/- was rightly disallowed under Rule 12 (1) of Schedule 1 of the Excess Profits Tax Act?' The statement refers to two chargeable accounting periods (1) 1945 and (2) 1946.2. The assessee at whose instance this statement has been submitted, is a public limited company having several branches and several subsidiary companies. Its business is looked after by a Board of Directors and the working of the branches, by Managers. Generally Directors themselves are appointed as Managers. The Directors and the Managers are paid their monthly salaries or fees and commission wor...
State of U.P. Vs. Prabhat Kumar Trivedi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All349; 1966CriLJ737
J. Sahai, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Utter Pradesh under Section 417, Cri. P. C. and is directed against: the order of Sri M. P. Srivastava, Magistrate 1st Class, Sitapur, dated 6-6-1964, acquitting the respondent, Prabhat Kumar Trivedi. 2. The Station Officer Incharge police station Kotwali, Sitapur, submitted a charge-sheet against the respondent for his prosecution under Sections 380 and 411, I. P. C. The Magistrate did not frame charge under Section 380,1. P. C. but framed one under Section 411, I. P. C. The relevant portion of the charge-sheet framed by him reads: 'That you on or about the 9th day of April 1963 at about 7-30 p.m. at Changalia Bus Stand, Qasba Narainl District Banda were found in possession of stolen revolver No. 2745 Webley Scott which you retained in your possession knowing or having reasons to believe it to be a stolen property and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance,' ...
Jer and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR335(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - This a statement of a case submitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'A', at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., inviting this court to answer the following question :'Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessee-firm was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 ?'The previous years relevant to the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 are financial years April 1, 1957 -March 31, 1958 and April 1, 1958 - March 31, 1959. The assessee is a partnership constituted on July 21, 1945, of two partners (1) Dady and (2) Minoo, who are brothers. The partners had been carrying on wholesale business in wines under the name and style of Jer and Company at Agra since October 1, 1944, but the partnership was constituted by a written document on July 21, 1945. The material terms of the deed of partnership are as follows :The partnership business...
State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. Vs. Firm Deo Dutt Lakhan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All73
Jagdish Sahai, Broome, Manchanda and Pathak, JJ.1. We are in agreement with the conclusions drawn by the learned Chief Justice. It was strenuously contended by Mr. Khare that the Full Bench has been wrongly constituted inasmuch as the judgment of B.D. Gupta, J. has been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of V.G. Oak and Seth, JJ.; but now that a Full Bench has been constituted, we do not think it is* for us to enter into the question of the propriety of the constitution of this Bench.Desai, C.J.2. This and connected special appeals are from a judgment of B. D. Gupta, J. allowing the respondents' petitions and directing the appellants to release forthwith the entire quantities of foodgrains seized by them under paragraph 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains (Control Requisition, and Distribution) Order, Order, 1963. Under Section 3 of the Defence of India Act the Central Government was authorised to make rules for securing the defence of India and civil defence, the pub...
Basant Lal and Sons Vs. Surya Kant Pooran Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All294
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115, C, P. C. by M/s. Basant Lal Mittal and Sons, plaintiffs, against the order of the Additional District Judge of Agra allowing the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act of M/s. Surya Kant Pooran Mal and another, defendants, and thereby decreeing the suit for a sum of Rs. 11.41 paisas only. The Judge Small Cause Court had decreed the suit for Rs. 619-9-3 on the ground that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the sale price as agreed upon. The Additional District Judge took a contrary view holding that the ex-factory price as fixed under the Government Order was applicable and the plaintiffs could not claim sale consideration at that rate. This is why the amount of the decree was reduced to Rs. 11.41 paisas. 2. It was first of all contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts A...
Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. Vs. Purushottam Das Rais.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR86(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is a consolidated case stated under section 66(1) relating to the assessments for the years 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52 made upon Sri Purshottam Das in the status of a Hindu undivided family.The questions referred are;1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was partial partition with respect to zamindari property 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the issue of notice by the State Government to the members of the family separately for compensation of zamindari property, mutation in khewats and separate possession of cultivated lands constitutes evidence for finding that the zamindari property had been partitioned 3. Whether the partition of house properties can be effected by the division of the rental receipts in the account books and by naming the six members of the family in the receipts issued to the tenants and recording the names of all the six persons in the re...
Jai NaraIn Rai Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All265
Desai, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of our brother Broome refusing toSlash an order passed by respondent No. 1, the District Magistrate of Azamgarh, cancelling under section 18 of the Indian Arms Act an arms licence possessed by the appellant on the ground that it was necessary to do so for the security of public peace. The order of the District Magistrate was challenged on the ground that no inquiry was held in the appellant's presence, that he was not called upon to show cause and was not heard in any other manner and that, consequently, the first principle of natural justice was violated. It is said that a Sub-Divisional Magistrate made an inquiry into use fey the appellant of the gun on a certain occasion but the inquiry was made at the back of the appellant. He was not informed to be present at a certain place at a certain time during the inquiry with the result that he was never present at any stage of the inquiry. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate never questioned him ab...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »