Skip to content

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.

Sep 15 1965

Dabal Singh Negi Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Sep-15-1965

Reported in: AIR1967All266

Desai, C.J. 1. This writ petition has been argued at considerable length and several contentions have been advanced before us but we find no force in them We are not prepared to accept the statement that no notice of the date on which the petitioner's application for renewal was to be considered was given In any case it is admitted that the petitioner was present when the application was considered by the Regional Transport Authority. Therefore, even if no notice had been given, he has not suffered Then he contends that he had not enough time or opportunity for meeting the charge that there were 11 convictions and prosecutions against him but he has not denied that there were 11 convictions and prosecutions against him He has also not contended that the alleged convictions and prosecutions did not exist He has not told us what explanation he could possibly offer in respect of the convictions It was open to the Regional Transport Authority to cancel or suspend the permit, under Section ...


Sep 15 1965

Sterling General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lala Bahali Rampuri and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Sep-15-1965

Reported in: AIR1966All385; [1967]37CompCas369(All)

S.D. Khare, J. 1. This is a first appeal filed by the Sterling General Insurance Co., Ltd., Scindia House, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) against the judgment and decree dated 27th November, 1954, passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, thereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Lala Bahali Rampuri, respondent No. 1, (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) filed an application under Section 13 of the Act against the Insurance Company and the Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). The applicant carried on business in sugar in the year 1947 and had opened a cash-credit account with the Kasur Branch of the Bank against the security of the sugar bags placed in the godown and hypothecated by him with the Bank. The hypothecated goods used to be stored in the godowns stituate at Mianwala, Bhikkiwind and Usmanwala. All these three godowns were situate in Kasur Tah...


Sep 10 1965

Sita Ram Vs. Jagan Lal

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Sep-10-1965

Reported in: 1967CriLJ1405

ORDERD.S. Mathur, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115. Civil P. C. by Sita Ram against the order dated 22.2-1964 of the Additional Civil Judge of Bulandshahr allowing the appeal of Jagan Lal, opposite party and thereby remanding the application under Section 476, Criminal P. C. for hearing on merits in accordance with the law.2. The Additional Munsif before whom the application under Section 476, Criminal P. C. was made was of opinion that in view of Section 479-A, Criminal P. C., the application was not maintain, able and no complaint could be made after the decision of the case. The learned Civil Judge has, however, taken a contrary view holding that the present case was not covered by Section 479-A, Criminal P. C. on account of the present applicant having filed an affidavit, and not made a statement before the Court of law, in other words, in the eye of law, he had not appeared as a witness.3. The effect of Section 479-A, Criminal P. C. can now be said to be beyond any contro...


Sep 08 1965

Gopal Sahai Vs. State

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Sep-08-1965

Reported in: AIR1966All252; 1966CriLJ506

ORDERGyanendra Kumar, J.1. The applicant was the Cashier of the Zila Parishad Mathura and in that capacity was entrusted to receive income of the Parishad like licence fee, contract money, security money, Nazul dues etc. It was his duty to deposit the same in the State Bank of India Mathura Branch in the account of the Zila Parishad. He was also entitled to withdraw money from the Bank from the account of the Parishad to be spent on its behalf, on items such as, pay-merit of salaries and Provident Fund of teachers etc. The allegation against the applicant is that he abused his position as a Cashier of the Zila Parishad and committed criminal breach of trust to the tune of Rs. 37,624-78p. between the period 1-4-61 and 31-1-62. He was accordingly charged of an offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. After preliminary enquiry under Section 207-A Cr. P. C. the Magistrate round a prima facie case against the applicant and committed him to stand his trial before the Court of Sess...


Sep 07 1965

Sundarlal Haveliwala Vs. Smt. Bhagwati Devi and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Sep-07-1965

Reported in: AIR1967All400

Mathur, J.1. This is an appeal by Sunder Lal Haveliwala against the order dated 26-9-1964 of the Civil Judge of Dehradun, allowing the application of Smt. Bhagwati Devi and Madho Lal Haveliwala, plaintiffs, for appointment of a Receiver and appointing two senior Advocates of Dehra Dun, namely, Sri Chaman Lal Singal and Sri B.B. Saran, as Receivers of Sri Janki Sugar Mills and Co., Doiwala. 2. The material facts of the case are that on October 25, 1952, seth Sunder Lal, appellant, seth Madan Lal, husband of Smt. Bhagwati Devi and father of Madho Lal, and Seth Sarju Prasad entered into partnership to run the above sugar Mills at Doiwala. The three partners were brothers and the share of each was one-third. The partnership agreement executed by the three partners is on the record and Clause 9 thereof provided. 'That in case of any dispute amongst the partners the matter shall be referred to an arbitration and the award of the arbitrator or the arbitrators as the case may be shall he final...


Sep 03 1965

Allahabad Milling Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer Ii

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Sep-03-1965

Reported in: [1966]17STC211(All)

M.C. Desai, C.J.1. A notice has been served upon the appellant under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act by the Sales Tax Officer in respect of assessment for the year 1959-60. It was stated in the notice that the Sales Tax Officer had reason to believe that a part of the turnover of the appellant had escaped assessment to tax for the assessment year. The appellant appeared in response to the notice but without filing the return called for by it, and objected to the issue of the notice on the ground that he had no information on the basis of which he could issue the notice. It is said that on the receipt of the objection the Sales Tax Officer wrote to another Sales Tax Officer, namely the Sales Tax Officer, Special Investigation Branch, Varanasi, asking for certain information in connection with the appellant's assessment to income-tax. No order has been passed by the Sales Tax Officer on the appellant's objection and he has not passed any assessment order under Section 21. The assess...


Sep 02 1965

Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, S ...

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Sep-02-1965

Reported in: [1966]59ITR401(All)

WRIT PETITION NO. 971 OF 1965.The petitioner manufactures and sells textiles. Its year of account commences on May 1 and ends on April 30 next.The petitioner installed plant and machinery in the accounting year 1948-49 and thereafter has made additions to its plant and machinery annually. For the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53, the petitioner was allowed initial depreciation at the rate of 20% on the plant and machinery which being new had been installed during the relevant year. This initial depreciation was allowed under section 10(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The written down value of plant and machinery at the commencement of the following year did not take into account the initial depreciation so allowed because section 10(2)(vi) contains a provision which declares that initial depreciation shall not be deductible in determining the written down value for the purposes of section 10(2)(vi). The petitioner entered the written down value, as reduced from year to...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial