Allahabad Court September 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Neekalal Jainarain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All338
Desai, C.J. 1. This is a statement of a case submitted, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, to this Court inviting to answer the following question: Whether the business of an Hindu undivided family on which notices under Section 13 of the E.P.T. Act had been served before the disruption of the Hindu undivided family could be subjected to E. P. T, after the disruption of the Hindu undivided family? The assessee is it Hindu undivided family which once carried on business in hemp and oilseeds in the name of Neeka Lal Jai Narain and the question is of being assessed to excess profits tax for two chargeable accounting periods, (1) 1-9-1939 to 14-11-1939 and (2) 15-11-1939 to 24-10-1940. Notices as required by Section 13 of the Excess Profits Tax Act were served upon the Karta of the Hindu undivided family on 8-6-1942. On 27-2-1943 it was assessed to the excess profits tax for the first chargeable accounting period b...
Shiv Prasad Ram Sahai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Uttar Pradesh.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR124(All)
This is a case stated under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench. The material facts of the case are these. The relevant year of assessment is 1957-58, the previous year being the year ending on Diwali in 2013 (October, 1956). The assessee is a registered partnership firm consisting of two persons, Sri Shiv Prasad and Sri Ram Sahai, having equal shares in the profits and losses. The assessee-firm carried on, inter alia, money-lending business and in the course of its money-lending business it had advanced a sum of Rs. 71,010 some time in 1948-49, to another registered firm of M/s. Gwalior Glass Industries (hereinafter called the debtor firm). There were four partner of the debtor firm, two of whom were also partners of the assessee firm. The two other partners were Sri Ram Prasad and Sri Jagdish Prasad. The assessee admittedly adopted the mercantile system of accounting. For the assessment year 1948-49 to 1956-57, the assessee...
Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. Vs. Neekelal Jainarain.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR704(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - This is statement of a case submitted, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, to this court inviting to answer the following question :'Whether the business of a Hindu undivided family on which notices under section 13 of the Excess Profits Tax Act had been served before the disruption of the Hindu undivided family could be subjected to excess profits tax after the disruption of the Hindu undivided family ?'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family which once carried on business in hemp and oil seeds in the name of Neekelal Jai Narain and the question is of its being assessed to excess profits tax for two chargeable accounting periods, (1) September 1, 1939, to November 14, 1939, and November 15, 1939, to October 24, 1940. Notices as required by section 13 of the Excess Profits Tax Act were served upon the karta of the Hindu undivided family on June 8, 1942. On February 27, 1943 it was assessed t...
Vijai Pratap Singh Vs. Ajit Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All305; 1966CriLJ632
ORDERGyanendra Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, V. P. Singh, is an Advocate practising at Azamgarh, Opposite Party No. 1, Shri Ajit Prasad Jain was erstwhile President of the U. P. Congress Committee, while Opposite Party No. 2, Govind Sahai is the General Secretary of the U. P. Congress Committee. Opposite Party No. 3, Rameshwar Narain Singh is the General Secretary of the District Congress Committee, Azamgarh. Election for membership of Prarambhik (Primary) Congress Committee of Tarwa in the district of Azamgarh was held on 10-4-84 for which the applicant and one Badri Singh were the only two candidates. Badri Singh aforesaid was declared elected. Accordingly on 16-4-64 the applicant filed suit No. 132 of 1964 in the Court of the City Munsif, Azamgarh, on the allegations that the Election Officer had committed certain illegalities and irregularities in conducting the said election; as such the same may be declared to be void and inoperative. Along with the plaint the petitioner had also f...
Smt. Raisa Sultana Begam and ors. Vs. Abdul Qadir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All318
Desai, C.J.1. This revision is directed against an order passed by a Munsif rejecting an application of Ghufran Ahmad, applicant No. 3 revoking his withdrawal from the suit.2. The suit was filed in the Court of the learned Munsif by the three applicants; on 5-2-1962 one of them, namely Ghufran Ahmad, made an application stating that he had no dispute left with the defendants opposite parties and praying that his name might be expunged from the array of plaintiffs because he was left with no interest in the subject-matter of the suit. At the time when the application was made, the learned Munsif was away and the application was placed before another Munsif, who ordered it to be laid before the learned Munsif on his return. The application was placed before the learned Munsif on his return and before any orders could be passed on it Ghufran Ahmad filed an affidavit stating that the application had been made by him on account of fraud practised upon him by the opposite parties and that he...
H.A. Sarkies and anr. Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All458
ORDERK.B. Asthana, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have challenged the right of the respondents to retain possession of a Bungalow of which they are the owners and have prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to restore possession of the accommodation to the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1, H.A. Sarkies is the son and the petitioner No. 2, Mrs, Gwen Laing is the daughter of late Mr. W.A. Sarkies after whose death they have inherited the Bungalow in question and are the owners thereof The District Magistrate, Meerut, is respondent No. 1 and one Sri Kailash Bhan, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut, is respondent No. 2.2. The dispute in this petition centres round Bungalow No. 74/A Boundary Road in Meerut Cantonment (hereinafter described as 'the accommodation'). Late Mr. W.A. Sarkies, the father of the petitioners, was the owner of the accommodation. In the life time of the father of the petitioners, by an ord...
Sri Kedar Nath Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All197; (1968)IILLJ6All
ORDERG.D. Sahgal, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed by one Kedar Nath Pandey. He was a clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Lucknow. By and by he rose to the post of the Election Inspector. On attaining the age of 55 years, which was the age of superannuation, he retired from service on the 15th of August, 1992. He was re-employed after retirement and a letter dated the 10th of September, 1962, copy of which it contained in Annexure 1 to both the petitions, was received by Sri M.C. Sharma, District Magistrate, Lucknow, from the Chief Electoral Officer, U. P., intimating that the petitioner's re-employment had been sanctioned from the date of his taking over to the 31st of March, 1963. In pursuance of that letter he took over charge on the 18th of September 1962. A formal sanction to the post was also accord ed by the communication dated the 4th of December, 1962, from the Nirvachan Vibhag of the U. P. Government addressed to the District Officer, Lucknow, vide An...
Uttar Pradesh Government Vs. Ram Milan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All287; (1968)ILLJ604All
N.U. Beg, J. 1. This is a first appeal by the U. P. Government which was defendant No. 1 in the trial Court. It arises out of a suit for damages filed by respondent no 1 Ram Milan who was the plaintiff in the trial Court. Respondent No. 1 Mohd. Rasool and respondent No. 3 Jharkhande were the servants of defendant No. 1, the U. P. Government, and were defendants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in the trial Court Along with the appeal we have a cross-objection filed by Ram Milan, the plaintiff This judgment disposes of both the first appeal filed by defendant No. 1 and the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff was based on the allegation that defendant No. 1 had been carrying on motor bus service in the district of Gonda for the last several years, that on the 2nd of June, 1952 a bus belonging to defendant No. 1 left Wazirganj for Gonda at about 1.30 P. M The plaintiff was a passenger in the upper class Defendant No. 2 Mohd Rasool was the driver of the said bus, and...
Makkhan Lal Vs. Indra Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All302
S.N. Singh, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for permanent injunction directing the defendant to construct a wall CG of he disputed room CEFG as shown in the plaint map upto the height of 7 ft. with a roof thereon with an alternative prayer that in case in the opinion of the Court the defendant could not be directed to construct the wall and the roof thereon the plaintiff might be allowed to carry out those constructions with a Duchhatti and a room on it which existed on the roof of the defendant from more than 20 years before the demolition of the disputed wall. The plaintiff further prayed that defendant be restrained by means of permanent injunction from making a wall in front of a Roshandan of the plaintiff which was in the first floor of his house. 2. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the plaintiff owned a house ABCD in the sketch map attached with the plaint excluding the room shown as CEFG in the house which belonged to the defendant. Over this room the plaintiff ...
Ram Naresh Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All174; 1966CriLJ383
S.K. Verma, J.1. This is au application under Section 461-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prayer in the application reads thus:--'It is, therefore, prayed that the judgment of the Division Bench sitting at Lucknow dismissing the Jail Appeal of the applicant and confirmation of the death sentence be treated as nullity and the appeal noted above be directed to be listed for hearing in the ordinary course.'2. The facts giving rise to the application are as follows.The applicant stood his trial (S. T. No. 7 of 1965) in the court of the learned Sessions Judge of Sultaupur for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted on the 29th of April, 1965 and sentenced to death. The learned SessionsJudge made the usual reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Lucknow Bench of this Court, as Sultanpur was within the jurisdiction of that Bench. Apparently, the learned Sessions Judge was unaware of the provisions of the new Limi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »