Allahabad Court December 1966 Judgments
Jiwan Lal Virmani Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1966
Reported in: [1967]66ITR338(All)
M. H. BEG J. - This is a reference made under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act made at the instance of an assessee whose wealth was assessed at Rs. 11,75,103 for the assessment year 1959-60. The objection which has given rise to this reference relates to a sum of Rs. 71,820 representing loans from the Life Insurance Corporation taken on the security of the life insurance policies of the assessee. The assessee, who is an individual, claimed that although this sum of money was taken ostensibly as a loan, yet, it was really an advance payment out of the right or interest of the assessee in insurance policies 'before the moneys covered by the policies became due and payable to the assessee'. Hence, according to the assessee, the amount was exempt from the computation of net wealth as defined by section 2(m) by virtue of section 5(1)(vi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The department relied upon the provisions of section 2(m)(ii) of the Act. Section 2(m) of...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sarup Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1966
Reported in: [1968]67ITR431(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is a case stated under section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act of 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 26,000 was tax able income ?'The material facts are these : The assessee, Ram Sarup, is the son of Lala Roshan Lal. Roshan Lal is the assessee in the connected I. T. Reference No. 245 of 1963. These two constitute one group representing one family. The other group is represented by Lala Purshottam Das and L. Jugul Kishore, who are brothers. The aforesaid four persons were the only shareholders of a private limited company, M/s. Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the mills company). This was, therefore, a family company. The aforesaid four persons had almost equal shareholdings of 25% each. In order to avoid friction between the two families of shareholders, it was agreed between them that the control and management of the mill compan...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Das Banarsi Das Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All549
R. Prasad, J. 1. This is a first appeal, which has been filed by one of the defendants, namely, Messrs Purshottam Dass Banarsi Dass from the decision of the 1st Additional Civil Judge. Kanpur in Suit No. 187 of 1952 dated 3rd August 1956. The Union of India through the Deputy General Manager. Western Railway, filed this suit against Uarshad Rai Natwar Lal Rawal, the Bank of Baroda. Birhana Road,Kanpur, Shri Shiva Chandra Misra and M/s. Purshottam Dass Benarsidass defendants 1 to 4 respectively. Messrs Purshottam Dass Benarsi Dass have filed the present first appeal.2. The reliefs sought by the Union of India in the suit were that a decree be passed against defendant No. 4, the present appellant firm asking it to return the suit goods viz. 248 bags of Zeera and ordering it to pay compensation in respect of the fall in value by detention or otherwise consequent upon its wrongful retention, or alternatively that a decree be passed against defendant No. 4 that it should pay to the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Rose Lock Factory (Through Haji Ajim Ullah, Partner) Vs. Labour Court ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ584All
Satish Chandra, J.1. This and the connected writ petition are directed against the same award. Writ Petition No. 1007 of 1066 has been filed by the employers and Writ Petition No. 2246 of 1966 has been filed by the workmen. Both can be conveniently disposed of by a single Judgment.2. On 15 April 1965 the State Government referred the following matter of dispute for adjudication to the labour court, Allahabad:Whether the employers kept the workmen, named In the annex are, out of employment with effect from 14 July 1964, and hare subsequently terminated their services with effect from 13 July 1964 legally and/or Justifiably? If not, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitleIn the annexure nineteen workmen were mentioned. They had been dismissed by the employers with effect from 18 July 1964 on the ground of fomenting and resorting to an illegal strike from 14 July 1964. The labour Court held that the managerial enquiry violated the principles of natural justice, because no genuine...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdeo and anr. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All262
ORDERSatish Chandra, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It raises a short but neat question of law. 2. The plots in dispute constituted sirdari holding of Sahdeo and his brother. Sahdeo deposited ten times of the rent on 6-11-1962 and made an application for the grant of a bhumidhari sanad. The same day Sahdeo executed a deed of sale of a share in the holding in dispute in favour of respondents 4 to 6. The sale deed was registered the next day that is, on 7-11-1962. Sahdeo died in the night intervening the 23rd and 24th November, 1962. In due course the bhumidari Sanad was issued in the name of Ram Deo, the son of Sahdeo, on 29th March, 1965. On commencement of proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, respondents 4 to 6 filed an objection that they are also entitled to the plots in dispute on the basis of the sale deed executed by the erstwhile tenant Sahdeo, in their favour Ram Deo. the son of Sahdeo as well as Ramayan, the son of Sahdeo'...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Prasad Gupta Agarwala Vs. S.M. Sabir Zaidi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All186
R. Prasad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's first appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar dated 2nd April 1955 in suit No. 45 of 1953.2. The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,000 from the defendant with costs of the suit on the facts disclosed in the plaint. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant-respondent carried on business of running contract carriage buses and that in that connection he owned Chevrolette Public Stage Carriage Bus USL 1818, which used to run between Muzaffarnagar and Bhopa and to carry passengers. The bus was insured against third party risk with some Insurance Company. The plaintiff himself was an Assistant Engineer (Tube Well Division) and belonged to respectable family Plaintiff's elder brother Janki Prasad was a retired Executive Engineer. Public Works Department. Uttar Pradesh, and one of the sons of the plaintiff, Sri Chandra Mohan Gupta was a Lieutenant in the Army, having Commissioned ...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Gases Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1966
Reported in: [1968]21STC124(All)
S.C. Manchanda, J. 1. This is a case stated under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred is :Whether the oxygen so prepared is a chemical liable to be taxed under Section 3-A at the rate of 0-1-0 anna per rupee or it is a medicine liable to be taxed under Section 3 at a reduced rate 2. The material facts are these : The assessee manufactures, inter alia, oxygen gas and also welding apparatus and stores and sells them. The assessee prepares the oxygen by the industrial process known as fractional distillation of liquid air. In other words air is first liquified and then the other gases are allowed to escape and pure oxygen is obtained. The oxygen so produced is sold by the assessee for purposes of welding metals and also for the use of medicinal purposes in the treatment of pneumonia, bronchitis etc. There is no material on the record as to what quantity was sold for medicinal or welding purposes. The total turnover of gases w...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Latif Nomani Vs. Commissioner Gorakhpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All44
Pathak, J.1. The Municipal Board of Maunath Bhanjan in the district of Azamgarh consists of the President and twenty elected members. Written notice of the intention to make a motion of non-confidence against the appellant Abdul Latif Nomani. President of the Board, was presented to the District Magis-trate, Azamgarh, on May 30, 1966, and the District Magistrate convened a meeting on July 3. 1966, for consideration of the motion. Notice of the meeting was despatched to the members of the Board by registered post on May 31, 1966 It appears that on June 10, 1966 the Commissioner of the Gorakhpur Division issued a notice to Sanaullah Sardar and Mohammad Yusuf. two members of the Board, purporting to charge them with absence from four consecutive meetings of the Board on different dates without obtaining the sanction of the Board and calling upon them to enter a statement of their defence by June 26, 1966. On July 1 1966, the Commissioner made an order removing Sanaullah Sardar and Mohamma...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Banaras Chemicals
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1966
Reported in: [1967]20STC246(All)
S.C. Manchanda, J.1. This is a case stated under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred is :Whether sodium silicate, as used in the manufacture of soap, is included in 'chemicals of all kinds' appearing as item No. 7 of the Notification No. ST-905/X dated 31st March, 19562. The material facts are these : The assessee is a manufacturer and dealer in sodium silicate and washing soap. The short question for consideration is whether sodium silicate is a chemical within the meaning of item No. 7 of the aforesaid notification issued under the powers conferred by Section 3-A of the Act. The item reads : 'Chemicals of all kinds.' The assessing authority and the Judge (Appeals) considered sodium silicate (water glass) to be a chemical and therefore falling within the mischief of item No. 7 of the said notification. The Judge (Revisions), however, took the view that sodium silicate though in its widest connotation might be a chemical y...
Tag this Judgment!Balwant Raj Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All14; [1967(15)FLR36]; (1967)IILLJ363All
S.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is an appeal by a Railway employee from the decree of the Civil Judge Roorki (at Saharanpur) affirming that of the City Munsif Saharanpur dismissing his suit for a declaration that he continues to be in the service of the Union of India. It is an important case because it reveals that some departments of Government have not yet realised that in making applying, and interpreting rules governing the conditions of service or their employees it is the duly of Slate to apply the directive principles of State policy in Par; IV of the Constitution The admitted facts are these The appellant Balwanl Raj was employed by the Northern Railway on 8th August 1950 and appointed as a Painter-Kha-lasi under the Head Trains Examiner Saharanpur Within three years he was drawing Rs. 75 as salary and allowances. It is common ground that he was never guilty of any misconduct or misbehaviour On 30th March 1953 he had the misfortune to he stricken with tuberculosis He reported sick and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »