Allahabad Court February 1966 Judgments
Punjab Lime and Lime-stone Co. Vs. Cantonment Board and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All15
ORDERS.K. Verma, J. 1. These are two connected writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners in the two cases have taken a lease of lime-stone quarry situate at Bhitarli in the District of Dehradun. The lime which is taken out of the quarry is taken to the railway station of Dehradun in trucks. While going from the quarry to the railway station the trucks have to pass over a road within the limits of the Cantonment Board of Dehradun. The Cantonment Board has erected barriers for the purpose of realising toll on the trucks passing through the Cantonment Area. The petitioners challenged the validity of the toll levied on their vehicles. They filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Dehradun. They thereupon filed a suit for an injunction restraining the Cantonment Board from realising the toll but the suit was also dismissed. They have, therefore, filed these petitions. They pray that a writ, order or direction i...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotey Lal and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All229; 1967CriLJ674
ORDERGyanendra Kumar, J.1. This is a revision by the accused against the order of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Bareilly dated 31st July, 1964 passed in a criminal revision filed by the complainant before him.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a charge-sheet dated 10-8-63 submitted by the Police under Section 332 I. P. C. against the accused was received in the court of the Judicial Magistrate (City) Bareilly on 24-4-64, which was duly recorded in the order sheet, The Magistrate registered the case. However, before he could issue summons of warrant, the accused made their appearance in court on that very date. They were accordingly supplied copies of the documents referred to in Section 173 Cr. P. C. The Magistrate then fixed 5-5-64 for the statement of the accused and framing of the charge.3. On 5-5-64 the Magistrate, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that at the time of the occurrence the complainant was not engaged in the discharge of hi...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Swarup Mathur Vs. Dr. Raghuraj Bahadur Mathur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All145; [1967]37CompCas304(All); 1967CriLJ306
Gyanendra Kumar, J.1. This is an appeal by the complainant against the appellate order of the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur, whereby he allowed the appeal of the respondents, who were sentenced by the Magistrate to pay a fine of Rs. 250 each under Section 629A of the Companies Act, hereinafter called the Act.2. For proper appreciation of the points involved in the case it would be necessary to consider certain provisions of the Act, as amended by Act 65 of 1960. The material portions of Section 263 of the Act are in the following terms :'263 (1) :--At a general meeting of a public company or of a private company which is a subsidiary of a public company, a motion shall not be made for the appointment of two or more persons as directors or the company by a single resolution unless a resolution that it shall be so made has first been agreed to by the meeting without any vote being given against it. 2. :--A resolution moved in contravention of Sub-section (1) shall be void whether or not o...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kamla Dal Mills Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1966
Reported in: [1966]18STC204(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for certiorari to quash Notification No. ST-7122/X-900 (16)/64 issued by the State Government of U.P. on 1st October, 1964, and injunction prohibiting the State of U.P. and the Sales Tax Officer, Hathras, from enforcing Section 3-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the above-mentioned notification against the petitioner and from levying, assessing and collecting purchase tax under Section 3-D on purchases. The petitioner is a firm registered as a dealer under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and carrying on the business of purchasing pulses from kachcha arhatiyas acting as agents of cultivators and from other dealers and manufacturers of dal and selling pulses. The U.P. Sales Tax Act was enacted 'to provide for the levy of a tax on the sale of goods in the United Provinces'. under Section 3 of it every dealer was required to 'pay a tax at the rate of three pies per rupee on his turnover of' each assessment year and it was to...
Tag this Judgment!Mosim Ali and ors. Vs. Ganga Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1966
Reported in: AIR1966All356
G.D. Sahgal, J. 1. This second civil appeal has come up before this Bench for disposal. The learned single Judge before whom it came up referred it to a Full Bench in view of the conflict between two Division Bench cases of this Court, viz. Hub Lal v. Mst. Dulara, 1954 All LJ 762 and Durgapal Singhv. Kunwar Jahan Singh, (8) 1957 All 257 as according to him, the result or the appeal depends on whether one or the other of the two decisions was correct. 2. The dispute relates to plots Nos. 558/1, 558/2, 565/1, 566/1, 566/2 & 567/2. The plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 to 5 filed a suit against the defendants-appellants with respect, among others, to these plots for possession and damages. They claimed that they were the sirdars of these plots and were in possession having obtained the same on the 19th of October, 1947, in execution of a decree in a suit for ejectment against the appellants filed in the year 1946. They claim to have been dispossessed thereafter in the year 1955 as a result of...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nawab of Rampur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1966
Reported in: AIR1966All440; [1966]62ITR1(All)
Desai, C.J.1. This statement of a case submitted under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P., has been laid before a Full Bench because of the importance of the question arising in it. The question referred by the Tribunal is:--'Whether the personal income of the assessce is immune or exempt from taxation under the Indian income-tax Act?'The assessee is His Highness the Nawab of Rampur and the assessment year is 1952-53.2. His Highness the Nawab of Rampur, who would be referred to as 'the Nawab' for the sake of brevity, was the ruler of the former State of Rampur. Since 1944 there was in force in the State 'The Rampur State Income-tax Act, 1944', the main provisions of which were similar to those of the Indian Income-tax Act. By Section 3, on the enactment of an Act of the Rampur State Legislative Assembly providing for the charging of income-tax for any year at a certain rat...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Herbs Research and Supply Co. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1966
Reported in: [1966]17STC551(All)
S.C. Manchanda, J.1. This is a case stated under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The question referred is-That 'dhoop or dhoop-batti' does not come under the category of 'perfume' and is not liable to tax under item No. 37 of Notification No. 905/X dated 31st March, 1956, under Section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.2. The material facts lie within a narrow compass and are these: The assessees are manufacturers of and dealers in dhoop-batti and they also deal in indigenous medicines at Dehra Dun. The return filed was not accepted and the turnover including that of sale of dhoop was estimated. The Sales Tax Officer assessed the turnover at 3 pies per rupee. The assessee appealed, but the Judge (Appeals) was of the opinion that the case called for enhancement in tax as the manufacture and sale of dhoop-batti fell within item No. 37 of Notification No. ST. 905/X dated 31st March, 1956, and was liable to tax under Section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, i.e., at single point. The Ju...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1966
Reported in: [1966]36CompCas617(All); [1966]61ITR563(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J. 1. This is a case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, and the question referred is:'Whether the net income of Rs. 1,81,569 and Rs. 1,97,198 received by the assessee in the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 respectively on account of interest on securities is exempt from tax under Section 14(3) of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The assessee is a co-operative society carrying on the business of banking and registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. Its main business is providing finance to its own members and occasionally it provides banking facilities to non-members. It holds Government securities in the course of its banking business and earns interest from them. Its total income is more than Rs. 20,000. During the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, it received Rs. 1,81,569 and Rs. 1,97,198 respectively as interest on the securities and claimed that it was exempted from the liability to pay income-tax on them by Section 14(3)(i...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Maya Devi and ors. Vs. Inder NaraIn Raizaday
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All118
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order of the III Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Budaun reversing that of the Munsif Budaun who had directed the respondent's plaint to be returned for presentation to the revenue court on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction, and directing the Munsif to re-admit the suit and decide it according to law. The plaintiff-respondent, Inder Narain Raizaday, filed a suit against the applicants praying for recovery of possession of a plot of agricultural land, for damages, for demolition of constructions alleged to have been made on his land by some of the defendants and for a permanent injunction to restrain them from interfering with his possession.2. The defendants resisted the suit and denied that the plaintiff had any claim or title to the land. In this revision I am not, however, concerned with the merits of the dispute but with the plea of jurisdiction raised by t...
Tag this Judgment!Upper India Sugar Mills Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1966
Reported in: [1966]17STC536(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The assessee manufactures and sells sugar. It was assessed to sales tax on its turnover of sugar for the year 1953-54. Aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal, and the Judge (Appeals), Sales Tax, reduced the assessable turnover and also the rate of tax applicable thereto. The Commissioner of Sales Tax applied in revision against the appellate order, and the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, allowed the revision application and modified the appellate order. During the hearing of the revision application, an objection was raised by the assessee that the revision application should not be entertained as it had not been validly presented. It was pointed out that the revision application had been sent by the Commissioner of Sales Tax to the office of the Judge (Revisions) by local post ('isthaniya dak') and this was not the mode prescribed by Rule 69 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948. It was contended that the revision application not havi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »