Allahabad Court April 1966 Judgments
J K Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. (No. 2) Vs. Commissioner of In ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1966
Reported in: [1966]62ITR836(All)
V. BHARGAVA, C.J. - The question referred for our opinion is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payments of salaries and bonuses made to Madanlal and H. P. Pasari during the period of their jail custody are allowable as deductions under section 10(2)(xv) ?'The fats found by the Tribunal on the basis of which this question has to be answered is that both these persons, Madanlal and H. P. Pasari, who were employers of the assessee-company, were accused of an offence of murder and were committed to jail as under-trial prisoners. Subsequently, they were acquitted. During the period that they were in jail they were not carrying out their ordinary duties which were entrusted to them as employees of the company. The company still made payments to both of them of their full salaries for the periods during which they were in jail and they were also allowed bonus. After considering the evidence of the parties, the Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove tha...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs. M. Ashan the Assistant Labour Commissioner and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All143; (1966)IILLJ711All
Broome, J.1. This reference arises out of a writ petition filed by the owner of a petrol pump employing one Munim and two salesmen or pump attendants to sell petrol and diesel oil to customers on a retail basis. The petitioner challenges an award given by the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 31-1-1961 under the provisionsof the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act in respect of a dispute between the petitioner and his employees over the termination of the services of one Jamuna Prasad, who had been working for the petitioner as a pump-attendant. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner was that the Industrial Disputes Act did not apply to his business, which was a mere retail shop and not an industry, as defined in the Act.2. The following issue has been referred to us for decision:'Is a retail shop an industry as defined in Section 2(k) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act?'3. The definition of 'industry' given in Section 2(k) of the Act is extremely wide and comprehensive. It runs:''...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singh Vs. State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ240
ORDERGyanendra Kumar, J.1. It will be convenient to dispose of all the six Criminal Revisions together. They are from Agra involving similar questions of fact and law. All the applicants are milk-sellers and have been convicted under Section 7/6 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The complaints against these applicants were either filed by Dr. L.N. Saxena or Dr. Niranjan Prasad, who were at the relevant time under the employ of Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, as will be clear from the following statements:Criminal Revn. No. Complaint filed Date ofby institutingComplaint.1522 of 1W64 (Behari Dr. L.N. Saxena 31.7.1961.Lal v. State).1523 of 1864 (Behari Dr. L.N. Saxena 9.8.1962.Lal v. State).1152 of 1984 Mehtab Dr. Niranian 4.10.1962.Singh v. State). Prasad1591 of 1964 (Nibboo Dr. Niranian 30.11.1962.v. State). Prasad1552 of 1964 (Shyam Dr. Niranian 1.1.1963.Lal v. State). Prasad1235 of 1964 (Ram Dr. Niranjan 1.1.1963.Singh v. State). Prasad2. The main objection of the applicants in each...
Tag this Judgment!J. K. Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1966
Reported in: [1966]62ITR813(All)
V. BHARGAVA, C.J. - The question referred for our opinion is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs. 56,000 made to the congress Parliamentary Board for the General Elections was an admissible expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act.The facts as they appear from the appellate order of the Tribunal and the statement of the case fall within a very narrow compass. It appears that, in connection with the General Elections which were to take place early in 1957, this sum of Rs. 56,000 was paid by the assessee-company to the U. P. Congress Parliamentary Board for its expenditure in the elections. At the time of the hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal, it was contended in a general manner on behalf of the assessee that, with the changing pattern of the economic structure of society, it was in the interest of the company to keep the ruling party in power. The Tribunal having mentioned that this was the contention did not proceed to...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Ram Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All227
ORDERR.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner was allotted chak No. 61 in proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were allotted chak No. 44. They filed an objection under Section 20(2) but the objection was dismissed. Then an appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the appeal was partly allowed and the chak was altered. The order of the Settlement Officer was made on March 14, 1963. A second appeal was then filed by the respondents before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was treated as a revision application and resulted in further modification of the chaks. The order of the Deputy Director disposing of the revision application is dated June 21, 1963. The petitioner Mas challenged that order by the instant petition for certiorari.2. The first question agitated before me is that the revision application before the Deputy Director was liable to be governed by Section 48 as it stood before its amendment on March 8, 1963...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Ram Vs. Khvali Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All484
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. These are two second appeals from two decrees of the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Mathura--one dismissing a suit for the ejectment of the defendant and the other decreeing a suit for specific performance. In the suit in S.A. No. 1515 of 1959, the applicants Moti Ram and Devi Ram were the plaintiffs and Khyali Ram the defendant, while in the suit in Second Appeal No. 1566 of 1959 the roles were reversed--Khayali Ram being the plaintiff and Moti Ram and Devi Ram the defendants. The facts are these. The land in dispute consists of agricultural plots. One Kali Charan was the bhumidhar of these plots. On 12-11-1953 he entered into an agreement with Khayali Ram by which he agreed to acquire bhumidhari rights over these plots and then to transfer them to Khayali Ram for a sum of Rs. 820, Khayali Ram paid Rs. 615 in advance and a deed of agreement was executed by Kali Charan. Khayali Ram was put in possession of the plots after the execution of the agreement. On 20th J...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Dwadesh Shreni and Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer a Ward
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All131; [1969]72ITR539(All)
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of Brij LalGupta, J. dated 6-9-1961, dismissing writ petition No. 483 of 1957 filed by the appellant-petitioner, M/s. P. C. Dwadesh Shreni and Co. Ltd., Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the Company).2. The Income-tax Officer demanded a certain amount of money as advance payment of income-tax under Section 18-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the company. Admittedly the Company did not pay any part of the demand. The stand taken by it was that being entitled to a certain refund and the amount of refund being in excess of the demand, no payment was required to be made. In the writ petition and the affidavit filed in support of it an averment was made that the sum of Rs. 7415/5/- out of the amount which the Company was entitled to receive as refund was adjusted by the Income-tax Officer towards the payment of advance income-tax demanded from the Company. This position is admi...
Tag this Judgment!Balley Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All341
Satish Chandra, J.1. This and the two companion petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenge the constitutional vires of the Opium Act (Act XIII of 1857) whereunder the respondents have completely banned the cultivation of poppy in pargana Jaunsar Bawar in the district of Dehradun.2. The petitioners state that they are the residents of pargana Jaunsar Bawar. Tehsil Chakrata district Dehra Dun and carry oh the occupation of agricultural cultivation in small hilly fields. From times immemorial the petitioners and their ancestors have been cultivating poppy for purposes of using its seed as staple food. It is alleged that poppy is used for preparing Chapati. Dal and even Chatni. Before 1950 there was absolutely no restriction upon the cultivation of poppy for purposes of extraction of opium or for seeds. With the enactment to the Opium and RevenueLaws (Extension of Application) Act, 1960, the Opium Act, 1857 was extended to the Pargana of Jaunsar Bawar. Section 8 of the Opium...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Swarup Mathur Vs. Har Swarup Mathur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1966
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas802(All); 1968CriLJ670
Gangeshwar Prasad, J. 1. This is an appeal by a complainant against the appeHate order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur in a case which was started by Raghunath Swarup Mathur, complainant, against Har Swarup Mathur, respondent, for the alleged contravention of Section 269(2) of the Companies Act.2. At Saharanpur there is a company known as the Co-operative Company Limited (Distillers), Saharanpur. All the shares of the company are held by the family of the parties who are brothers. It is admitted that Har Swarup Mathur was the managing director of the company before the commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960. It is also admitted that he was reappointed as the managing director of the company by a resolution of the general body of shareholders on 30th September, 1961, and began functioning as such. The complaint was that, since the approval of the Central Government was necessary under Section 269(2) of the Companies Act before the reappointme...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Hyder Abbas Raza Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All114; 1967CriLJ298
Seth, J.1. We heard this habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on 3rd March 1965, and at the close of the hearing, we allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith and indicated that our reasons would be pronounced later. Accordingly our present judgment gives our reasons for the order which has already been passed by us on 3rd March 1966.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, as contained in the petition, are that the petitioner, Syed Hyder Abas Raza, son of Syed Mehdi Hasan, resident of No. 3 Nabiullah Road, Luoknow, is a practising advocate at Lucknow and was a student of Lucknow University in 1958. He was at that time the General Secretary of the District Unit of the Lucknow Students Federation as well as the Secretary of the State Unit of the same organisation. In August 1958 the petitioner was arrested at Lucknow for a breach of an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was, however, released lat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »