Allahabad Court August 1966 Judgments
Abdul Aziz and anr. Vs. A. Raj Chhabra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All119
G.D. Sahgal, J. 1. I have had theadvantage of going through the judgment prepared by my learned brother and though I agree with the ultimate order proposed to be passed in the case, I would like to add a few words of my own.2. The facts of the case do attract the provisions of Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 21 of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure if there is a failure of compliance with any order to answer interrogatories or for discovery or inspection of documents, then if the defaulting party is a plaintiff, he is liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution and if a defendant, to have his defence struck out and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended. There is thus a difference between the case of a plaintiff if he is the defaulter and that of a defendant if he is the defaulter. In the former case the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution as a result of the default and if the court thinks fit to en...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Lal and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1709
ORDERG.D. Sahgal, J.1. Hira Lal, Gbirau Lal, Mohan Lal, Atma Bam and Phool Chand applicants were tried along with one Budhdhi Lal by the Sub. Divisional Magistrate, Nanpara in the District of Bahraioh for an offence under Section 23 of the Petroleum Act, for storing at Katarniaghat 744 tins of kerosene oil more than 500 gallons in bulk, without licence and thus violating Rule 90 of the Petroleum Rules. Out of them Budhdhi Lal was acquitted and the rest convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- each. The five who were thus convicted filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraioh. It is against that judgment that they have come up to this Court in revision.2. Atma Ram and Mohan Lal applicants are the partners of a firm known as Budhdhi Lal and SOUP. The firm deals in kerosene oil as an Agent of Burmah Shell. The applicant Phool Ohand is the Muneem of the firm. Ghirau Lal and Hira Lal applicants, father and son, have a certain shop in Katarniaghat....
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR755(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 the inference of the Tribunal that the activities of textile manufacture and share dealings did not constitute the same business within the meaning of section 24(2) of the Income-tax Act is justified ?'The material facts are thes : The assessee is a public limited company. It runs a cotton spinning and weaving mills at Kanpur and also deals in share business. The relevant assessment year is 1950-51. In the preceding assessment year i.e., 1949-50 the total loss was determined by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 14,66,364. Out of the said total loss, the loss in share dealing in that year as per the assessees books of account was Rs. 13,46,628 inclusive of the loss of Rs. 86,171 suffered in tea shares. The assessee conceded that the loss in tea shares could not be set off against the income from business. It, however, claimed that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mithoo Lal Tek Chand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR377(All)
MANCHAND J. - This a case stated under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The questions referred are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt of notice by Ram Dayal, the munim of the assessee-Hindu undivided family, constituted a proper and valid service on the assessee ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, action under section 34(1) (a) was legal and valid ?'The material facts are these : The relevant assessment year is 1945-46, the previous year being the Diwali year ending 16th October, 1944. On the first day of the succeeding accounting year, i.e., on the 17th of October, 1944, relevant for the assessment year 1946-47, there were three credits in the names of three members of the Hindu undivided family totalling Rs. 65,000. These credits were : (1) Rs. 50,000 in the name of Surajmal Surajram, (2) Rs. 10,000 in the name of Krishnadas, and (3) Rs. 5,000 in the name of Dharam D...
Tag this Judgment!Sharda Saran Srivastava (Cinema Employees' Union) and Anr. Vs. State o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ772All
S.N. Dwivedi, J.1. Fllmistan Exhibitors (Private), Ltd,, Delhi, owns several cinema houses situated all over India Including Filmistan Theatres, Kanpur, and New Filmistan Cinema, Model Basti, New Delhi. It also carries on the business of exhibiting films in these cinema houses. Petitioner 1, Sharda Saran Srivastava, was employed as a permanent operator in Fllmlatan Theatres, Kanpur. Petitioner 2, the Cinema Employees' Union, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur, as Its name indicates, is the union of the employees of cinema houses In this State. Petitioner 1 was its president in 1958.2. It appears that sometime In 1957 Fllmistan Exhibitors (Private), Ltd, (hereinafter called the employer), purported to transfer petitioner 1 from Kanpur to New Delhi. The latter did not agree; and there ensued an industrial dispute between the employer and petitioner 2 about the transfer of petitioner 1. The matter went of before the Regional Conciliation Officer, Kanpur. Before him the parties arrived at an agreement....
Tag this Judgment!Devi Das Madho Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All414; [1967]63ITR356(All); [1967]20STC53(All)
Manchanda, J. 1. This is a case staled under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred is:'Whether the sum of Rs. 27,167 debited by the assessee to the profit and loss account and credited to the sales tax account is an admissible deduction?' 1-a. The material facts are these: The relevant assessment year is 1056-57, the year ending on 28th August, 1957 The assessee is a dealer in cloth both purchased locally and imported from outside. Uptill the 31st March, 1956, sales tax was charged by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on sales of cloth imported from outside Uttar Pradesh at the rate of 3 pies to 6 pies per rupee. On the 31st of March,1956, the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh issued an Ordinance raising sales tax to one anna per rupee. This Ordinance was subsequently replaced by the U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1956, which purported to regularise the provisions of the said Ordinance Subsequent to this the U. P. Sales Tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghuraj Singh Vs. Northern Railway (by Divisional Superintendent)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ68All
Satish Chandra, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of a workman. It is directed against an order registering the memorandum of agreement between the appellant and his employer, namely, the Northern Railway.2. The appellant was working as a fireman-grade C, when on 21 October 1960 he met with an accident at Tapri railway station and received an injury to his left eye. He was given medical treatment. Later on he was examined by the divisional medical officer, New Delhi, who assessed the appellant's loss of earning capacity caused by the Injury to his left eye at 10 per cent. The appellant's vision of the left eye was only lessened and not completely lost. The appellant has admitted this fact in his statement. The railway administration transmitted to the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1823, a memorandum of agreement arrived at between the appellant and the railway administration for registration. The appellant objected to the registration on the ground that it was ob...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubar Dayal Ram Kishan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR572(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has, at the instance of the assessee, submitted under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act this statement of case inviting this court to answer the following two questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the department correct in making the assessment under section 34(1)(a) 2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, then was the Tribunal correct in alternating an assessment made under section 23(3)/34(1)(a) into an assessment under section 23(3)/34(1)(b) when it was satisfied that the requisites of section 34(1)(b) were found on the record ?'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. In its capital account there were two credit entries, one of Rs. 12,000 and odd made on December 12, 1953, and the other of Rs. 14,000 and odd made on January 13, 1954. The assessees explanation for the credit entries was disbelieved and the amounts were held by the Income-tax Officer t...
Tag this Judgment!Parmatma Prasad Vs. Mt. Sampatti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All184
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal from the decree of the Civil Judge, Gorakhpur reversing that of the 3rd Additional Munsif and dismissing his suit for an injunction to restrain the defendant-respondents from interfering with his right to use a piece of land and for a mandatory injunction to close up a door and a window opening on this land. The houses of the plaintiff appellant Parmatma Prasad and the defendant-respondent Mst. Sampatti are adjacent with a vacant plot of land between them. The plaintiff alleged in his plaint that the strip of land between the two houses belonged to him and he had constructed a latrine on it for his use, that the defendants had recently opened a door and window in the wall of their house facing the vacant plot (and also facing the plaintiff's house); that the defendants had recently demolished a wall of the plaintiff's latrine, and when the plaintiff protested they threatened to assault him. The plaintiff then filed this suit and ask...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All532; 1967CriLJ1467
Tripathi, J. 1. Six persons namely appellant Jagdish and his brother Parath, Babu and his brother Begraj. Mahabir and Ram Nath were tried by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge of Mujaffarnagar on an indictment that on 1st of May, 1965. at about 10 a.m. they had formed an unlawful assembly having armed themselves with lethal weapons and in prosecution of their common object had committed the murder of Ram Nath son of Kishun Dayal near a culvert at Ghaloli-Rohana road in the district of Muzaffarnagar. The learned Sessions Judge held appellant Jagdish guilty under Section 302 I. P. C and sentenced him to death. The other five accused were acquitted on the finding that 'there is no doubt that they did not participate in the incident.' Appellant Jagdish has come up in appeal against his conviction and sentence and the learned Sessions Judge has made a reference for the confirmation of the sentence of death inflicted on the appellant. 2. The prosecution rase in short is as follows. One Sadho Sing...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »