Allahabad Court November 1966 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.
Munshi Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All345
ORDERGangeshwar Prasad, J.1. The applicant Munshi was tried along with five other persons, viz. Atma Singh. Sher Khan, Sem Singh, Hetam and Zulfi, by a Magistrate 1st Class Meerut Munshi and Sher Khan were each convicted under Section 380 I. P. C and sentenced to fifteen months' rigorous imprisonment, Atma Singh was convicted under Section 411. I. P. C., and sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment, while the remaining three accused were acquitted. The convicted persons preferred an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Meerut allowed the appeal of Atma Singh and set aside his conviction, but dismissed the appeals of Munshi and Sher Khan and maintained then convictions and sentences Munshi has come up in revision to this Court.2. The case of the prosecution was that on the night between 25th and 26th August 1963 a Bhainsa belonging to Sheo Ram and two bullocks belonging to Ram Swarup were stolen from the respective Ghers of the said persons in village Chhabli. The loss o...
Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. Vs. Ram Rakshpal, Ashok Kumar.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1966
Reported in: [1968]67ITR164(All)
M. H. BEG J. - This reference made to us under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act arises in the following circumstances : One Durga Prasad and his son, Ram Rakshpal, and his grandson, Ashok Kumar, constituted a Hindu undivided family until the 11th of October, 1948, when there was a partition in the family so that Durga Prasad separated. After that, Durga Prasad carried on his own business in the name of Messrs. Murli Dhar Mathura Prasad until his death on 29th of March, 1958, and Ram Rakshpal and his son, Ashok Kumar, carried on their own separate business under the name and style of Messrs. Ram Rakshpal and Ashok Kumar, the assessee before us. Durga Prasad also left behind a widow, Jai Devi, and a daughter, Vidyawati. Upon his death, Vidyawati took her 1/3rd share of the property left by Durga Prasad, but his widow, Jai Devi, and his son, Ram Rakshpal, entered into a partnership with 2/3rd of the assets of the business known as Murlidhar Mathura Prasad which was, as already i...
The State Vs. Raghubir Sahai Kaithwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All586; 1967CriLJ1594
ORDERGyanendra Kumar, J.1. The opposite party, Raghubir Sahai Kaithwal, is an M. L A. from Fatehpur. The admitted facts are that a case under Section 323 I. P. C was instituted against Ram Saran alias Lallan at the Instance of the opposite parties State v. Ram Saran and was pending in the court of Shri Dinesh Mohan Arya, Judicial Magistrate Bindki at Fatehpur The opposite party was the main prosecution witness in the case; but he was disbelieved with the result, that the Magistrate acquitted the accused. In his judgment, the Magistrate passed scathing remarks against the opposite party and awarded a compensation of Rs. 500 to be PAid to Lallan accused. Against the said order the opposite party filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge which is still pending. He also came to this Court for expunction of adverse remarks against him. By its Order dated 14-4-1966 this Court expunged only one word from the remarks of the Magistrate but maintained the rest.2. Soon after the Magistrate had aw...
Shailesh Kumar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1966
Reported in: 1966CriLJ110
S.D. Khare, J1. These are two connected appeals arising out of an order dated 22nd January, 1966, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, convicting all the nineteen appellants of the two connected appeals for the double murder of Somti and Bhaddu, for making an attempt to cause the deaths of four persons, namely, Prashad, Sm. Katwari, Swaminatha and Sant Kumar, and for rioting. Shaileah Kumar alias Moti Lal, who was armed with a gun and was responsible for causing the deaths of Somti and Bhaddu, was convicted under Section 302, Penal Code, and sentenced to death. The remaining eighteen appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149, Penal Code for those offences and sentenced to imprisonment for life. All the nineteen appellants were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 149, Penal Code, and each sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. For the offence of rioting the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 1966, being armed with deadly weap...
Satya NaraIn Bagla Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. ([1967] 66 I. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1966
Reported in: [1968]67ITR240(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is a case stated under section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred is :'Whether, within the meaning of section 2 (11) (a) of the Income-tax Act, read with section 23A of the Income-tax Act, the amount of Rs. 3,56,88 treated as deemed dividend income from Kanpur Agencies Private Ltd. and held to be in existence on February 27, 1953, be included in the assessment year 1953-54, or in the assessment year 1954-55 ?'The material facts are these : The relevant year of assessment is 1954-55, the previous year being Asauj Sudi 9, Samvat 2010, corresponding to September, 1953. The assessee was a shareholder, inter alia, in Kanpur Agencies Private Ltd., to which the provisions of section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, were applied. A general meeting having taken place on the 27th February, 1953, the assessees share of dividend deemed to have been declared was determined at Rs. 3,56,888. Besides this deemed dividend, ...
Ram Kishan Baldeo Prasad Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All53; [1967]65ITR491(All)
Manchanda, J.1. This is a case stated under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question which has been referred is: ''Whether for the assessment year 1945-46, the assessment of which was made in March 1950 could a penalty be imposed in August 1957?'2. The material facts are these: The assessee is a firm The relevant assessment year is 1945-46, for which a notice under Section 22(2) of the Act was served in June 1945. Before the expiry of the period given therein for filing the return an application was moved praying for 12 weeks' further time. This application, however, was rejected. Thereafter notices under Section 22(4) were issued tc the assesses. The notices were not complied with for one reason or the other. On the 24th of June 1949, a notice under Section 28(3) was issued to show cause why a penalty be not levied in respect of the default in filing the return. Thereafter, a return was filed on the 20th of July, 1949.The assessee in ...
Hanuman Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1969All130; 1969CriLJ359
Gangeshwar Prasad, J.1. These are two connected criminal appeals arising out of the same sessions trial. The incident which led to the trial was the tragic sequel of two election meetings held in close proximity to each other by two rival parties to a contest for election to the Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha from the Gondwa constituency of District Hardoi in connection with the general elections of 1962. The two contesting candidates for the election were Sri Mohan Lal Verma and Sri Rajendra Singh, the former being a candidate of the Congress party and the latter a candidate of the Jan Sangh party. The incident occurred on the 7th of February, 1962 in the Bazar of Lumamau, police station Sandiia, District Hardoi and it resulted in the death of three persons and in injuries to many others.2. Three reports were lodged about the incident at three different police stations. The first report was by Mohan Singh (P. W. 9) at police station Sandila, situate at a distance of about six miles from t...
Mool Chand Vs. Smt. Vishala Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All524
Mahesh Chandra, J.1. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the appeal filed before the lower appellate court was time-barred.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Court below erroneously believed that an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was necessary and dismissed the appeal as time barred because it had received the application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel for the appellant urges that there was no necessity at all for an application for condonation of delay and that the appeal filed was within lime after excluding the periods taken for obtaining a copy of the judgment and a copy of decree.3. The judgment of the trial Court is dated 4-12-1963. The appellant applied for a copy of the judgment on 10-12-1963 and the copy was ready on 2-1-1964. He was entitled to an exclusion of 24 days in computation of the period of limitation. He could, therefore, file an appeal on 27/1/1964....
Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd., Kanpur Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All114; [1968]68ITR437(All)
Manchanda, J.1. This is a case stated under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred is:'Whether the Tribunal was legally right in its view that in the circumstances the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not an order under Section 31 of the Income-tax Act and as such no appeal lay against that order?'2. The material facts are these: The assessee company was incorporated in September 1936 as a private limited company. It was converted into a public company with effect from 1-10-1941, and since then it is being assessed as such. The company was carrying on business in the sale of Hessian and gunnies. The relevant assessment year is 1946-47. The original assessment for the relevant assessment year was completed on the 20th of March 1947 on an income of Rs. 1,71,694/- which was reduced in appeal to Rs. 1,41,487/-.3. The successor Income-tax Officer on going through the assessment records found that no additi...
State of U.P. Vs. Neel Kanth and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All447; 1967CriLJ1250
R.N. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Hardoi, acquitting the respondents, Neel Kanth and Drigpal of the charges under Sections 399 and 402 Indian Penal Code.2. Briefly stated the prosecution story was as follows: Rajendra Prasad Singh. Station Officer of Police Station Atrauli, was going in connection with the investigation of a murder case and when he reached near village Godenra he received information that the gang of Munnu Lal would assemble at Behta Bridge in the night for committing dacoity at the house of Rameshwar Dayal of village Mahmoodpur. Rajendra Prasad Singh went to Police Station Sandila and communicated this information to Raghubir Singh, Station Officer of that place. An entry of this information was made in the general diary. The station officer of Sandila sent two constables to village Mahmoodpur for keeping guard at the house of Rameshwar Dayal and he himself along with Rajendr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »