Allahabad Court September 1965 Judgments
State of U.P. Vs. Farooq Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1965
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1101
M.H. Beg, J.1. This is an appeal against an acquittal of the accused under Section 247, Cr. P.C., from a charge under B, 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Magistrate who passed the order of acquittal on 14.6.1963 has clearly misunderstood the provisions of Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides that, if, on the date appointed for the appearance of the accused, or, on any subsequent date of hearing, to which the case has been adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall acquit the accused, unless the Magistrate thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other date. It was, therefore, not incumbent upon the Magistrate to have automatically dismissed the complaint on any date on which the complainant did not appear. The language of Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code shows that the word 'shall' is not mandatory, but only confers the jurisdiction upon the Magistrate to acquit the accused if the Magistrate does not cons...
Tag this Judgment!B. R. Sons Limited, Kanpur Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR131(All)
DESAI C.J. - The assessee, at whose instance the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has submitted this statement of case that the court, earned income as managing agent of two companies. It is said to have earned into agreements made for adequate consideration with third parties, namely, Sri R.R. Morarka and Sri S. D. Garg, within the meaning of section 12a of the Indian Income-tax Act for sharing the managing agency commission in the proportion of 7 to 1. During the assessment proceedings it claimed that it was liable to be a assessed only on 7/8th of the income received as the managing agency commission from each of the two companies, the remaining 1/8th income being liable to be assessed in the hands of the third parties but it filed no declaration of this fact (and consequently the question of its producing sufficient evidence to prove the facts contained in the declaration did not arise). The Income-tax Officer assessed it on the whole of the managing agency commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Umar Noor Mohammad Vs. Dayal Saran Darbari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All253
Gangeshwar Prasad, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of money claimed as payable to the plaintiff on account of the defendant's failure to perform a contract for sale of a house in favour of the plaintiff. The house stands on Nazul land forming part of the Government Estates in Allahabad, and the land is held by the defendant as a lessee from the Government. By means of a deed of agreement dated 5-2-1948 the defendant agreed to sell the house to the plaintiff for Rs. 20,500 out of which a sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid to the defendant as earnest money. Under the terms of the agreement the sale deed was to be executed after the sanction of the Collector and within three months of the receipt of the sanction. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant refused to execute the sale deed in spite of being repeatedly asked to do so, and the plaintiff is consequently entitled to a refund of the earnest money and to a sum of Rs. 1,000 as damages according to ...
Tag this Judgment!Pawansut Bangle Stores Vs. Assistant Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1965
Reported in: [1966]18STC87(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner, which is a partnership firm, deals in glass bangles. Some of the bangles purchased by it from the manufacturers are sold in the same condition, while others are, according to the petitioner, painted with liquid gold, and then sold. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1960-61. On 20th February, 1965, it was served with a notice stating that a part of the turnover for that assessment year had escaped assessment and it was asked to furnish a return of its entire turnover and to produce its account books. On 23rd March, 1965, the petitioner was required to furnish a list specifying the several purchases of liquid gold from two concerns, M/s. Madan Mohan Dammamal (Private) Ltd., and M/s. Kunjilal Hardayal, both of Firozabad. The list was furnished by the petitioner. On 23rd March, 1965, the petitioner was also informed by the Sales Tax Officer that the assessment on escaped turnover was proposed u...
Tag this Judgment!Pirthi and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1369
M.H. Beg, J.1. The two appellants before me have been convicted under Section 395 I.P.C. and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment by a Civil and Sessions Judge, Varanasi. It was alleged that they had taken part in a dacoity committed at the houses of Nankoo (P.W. 2) and Gauri (P.W. 22) and Shyam Narain alias Samman (P, W. 4) al Umralia Bazar, police-station Chaubepur, in the district of Varanasi, on the night between 3rd and 4th October, 1961. The dacoits, said to be about 12 in number, came armed with lathis, ballams, and guns, and carried torch lights. They first tried to break open the door on the back of Nankoo's house which lay across the lane towards the north of the house of Lachman (P. VV. 24). Nankoo himself was asleep on the Jagat of his well whereas his wife and son were asleep in the house, tachman's wife was also asleep inside her house. There was a window in Lachman's house, towards the north, overlooking the back of the house of Nankoo through which the dacoits ...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. and ors. Vs. the Muir Mills Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All284; [1968(16)FLR13]; (1967)IILLJ598All
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. By means of these two connected special appeals the judgment of V.D. Bhargava. J. dated 14-3-1961 is challenged. Special Appeal No. 319 of 1961 has been filed by the State of U. P., the Conciliation Officer and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, U. P., Kanpur Region, while special appeal No. 580 of 1961 has been filed by the workmen of the Muir Mills Company Limited Kanpur. 2. On the 9th of January 1957 the State Government referred a dispute to the Conciliation Officer, U. P., to the following affect :'Whether the employers have wrongfully and/or unjustifiably increased the work load of their doffers mentioned in the annexure with effect from July 31, 1957? If so, to what relief, if any, are the workmen concerned entitled?' The reference was made at the instance of the workmen. The complaint of the workers is that the work load on the doffers working in the Muir Mills Company Limited, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Mills) has increased and the work which w...
Tag this Judgment!Deep Chand JaIn Vs. Board of Revenue
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All412
Satish Chandra, J. 1. In this group of writ petitions the main questions raised are common. The facts requisite for the decision of the common questions are also similar. All these can conveniently be decided by one judgment.2. The petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution. They pray that the orders of the authorities constituted under the U. P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act, 1957 be quashed.3. In response to notices served on the petitioners under Section 7(2) of the Large Land Holdings Tax Act, the petitioners filed returns showing the annual valuation of their land holdings. The assessing authority did not accept the returns and called upon the petitioners to prove it. The petitioners filed oral and documentary evidence in support of their case that certain disputed areas of land were not theirs but were the holdings of their wives or sons or brothers in view of a partition of the joint family properties between the members of the family, by a partition decree or by a will o...
Tag this Judgment!Srichandlal Bhikari Das Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All269
W. Broome, J. 1. The following question has been referred to us for decision on the initiative of D. S. Mathur J.:-- 'Can the District Magistrate issue an order under Section 7 (2) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act in a case where the landlord has authorised the tenant to sub-let the whole or a part of the accommodation ?' D. S. Mathur J. pointed out that in Ram Autar Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1964 AllLJ 491 a learned Judge of this Court (G. C. Mathur J.) had held that the District Magistrate could not allot accommodation that was previously in the occupation of a sub-tenant. In his view, that decision required re-consideration--hence the present reference. 2. Mr. Banarsi Das, appearing for the petitioner Srichand Lal, has attempted to argue that there was no proper permission in writing by the landlord authorising the tenant in this case to sub-let, as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act; but this is a question with which we are not at ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All24
ORDERG.C. Mathur, J. 1. These petitions have been filed by certain bus operators challenging the levy of toll on their vehicles crossing the Hindon Bridge Shri S.C. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Gopi Nath, learned Junior Standing Counsel, have both stated that it is unnecessary to consider the facts of each individual case since common questions of law arise in all the writ petitions and their decision rests upon the answers to be given to those questions. This order will govern all these writ petitions.2. The petitioners ply their stage carriages on the Muzaffaranagar--Budhana--Kandhla--Isoopur route. This route crosses two rivers, namely river Hindon at Budhana and river Krishna at Rajpur Chhajpur A new bridge was constructed over river Hindon by the State Government and it was opened to traffic from September 21, 1960. Toll is being levied on vehicles crossing this bridge by the State Government under certain notifications issued by it under the Indian Tolls Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mill (Private) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of I ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All260; [1966]60ITR362(All)
Desai, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Allahabad Bench, has at the assessee's instance submitted this statement of case to this Court inviting it to answer the following question:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances stated above, the basis of valuation of the assets adopted for the assessment year 1954-55 is proper and legal?'The facts, as they appear in the statement, are these. A partnership firm known as Ram Chand and Sons owned sugar mills and by an agreement dated 15-1 1952 it sold the mills to a private limited company known as Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. The privatelimited company was formed on 17-1-1962. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1953-54, the written down value of the assets in the accounts of the partnership firm was rupees 11 lacs and odd. They were sold by the partnership firm to the private limited company for a sum of Rs. 41,69,681/- on the basis of a valuation of the assets done by an expert valuer alleged to be a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »