Allahabad Court May 1967 Judgments
Smt. Bibbi and anr. Vs. Shugan Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All216
Gangeshwar Prasad, J.1. Thematters which have been referred to this Full Bench relate to court-fee.2. Sagun Chandra and Smt. Raieshwar Devi, plaintiffs-respondents in First Appeal No. 301 of 1959, filed suit No. 3 of 1957 in the court of the Civil Judge Farrukhabad, for a declaration that a sale deed dated October 16. 1952 was unauthorised, void, illegal, and ineffective against the plaintiffs, and it did not bind them or effect their one-third share in the property purporting to have been hold under it. Smt Ram Piari, plaintiff-respondent in First Appeal No. 302 of 1959, filed in the same court suit no 48 of 1956 for a similar declaration in her own favour in respected of the same sale deed A court-fee of Rs 18-12-0. as a fixed court-fee for a suit to obtain a declaratory, decree, was paid on the plaint in both the suits. The Inspector of Stamps raised an objection that additional court-fee was payable on the plaint in the two suits as the reliefs claimed therein were covered by Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Chobey Sunder Lal Vs. Sonu Alias Sonpal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All304
Oak, J.1. I have read the judgment prepared by my learned brother Dwivedi, J.I agree that the three questions of law framed by him should be answered, in the manner indicated by him.S.N. Dwivedi, J.2. These two appeals and the writ petition have been referred to a larger Bench for decision.During the hearing the parties Counsel agreed that the Bench should decide three main questions of law arising in these cases and send back the reference to the learned Judges referring the cases for decision of the cases. Accordingly, we propose to express our opinion on the three main questions arising in these cases. One of these questions is common to all these cases, the second question arises only in Second Appeal No. 1443 of 1961; while the third question arises only in the writ petition. These questions are:1. Whether, in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the cases of Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Khalil-ul-Rahman, 1961 All LJ 27 = (AIR 1961 SC 143) and Amba Prasud v. Mahboo...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Chander Anand Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All317
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. These are five connected writ petitions in which vires of the Uttar Pradesh Vritti, Vyapar, Ajivika Aur Sevayojan Kar Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam), passed by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature has been challenged on the ground that the same is unconstitutional.2. The preamble of the Adniniyam reads:'An Act to provide for the levy of a tax on professions, trades, callings and employments in Uttar Pradesh.'The entry relied upon by the State in No. 60 of the Second List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India which reads:'Taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments.'The Adhiniyam has got 24 sections. Clause (6) of Section 2 of the Adhiniyam defines a 'person' and Clause (12) defines the 'total gross income'. Those provisions are reproduced below:--'2. (6) 'person' includes a Hindu undivided family, company, an incorporated body, a firm, a society or any other association of persons;x x x x(12) 'total gross income' means ...
Tag this Judgment!The Bullion and Agricultural Produce Exchange Private Limited Vs. the ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All338; 1968CriLJ1325
ORDERSatish Chandra, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prays that the proceedings consequent on the search and seizure of theypetitioner's premises made on 18th May, 1966, e quashed and the respondents be directed to return the seized documents and the account books and not to launch any prosecution of the petitioner on the basis of the seized documents. 2. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated in 1946. It carried on the business of commission agents in respect of forward trading in various goods. The Forward Contract (Regulation) Act (No. 74 of 1952) was passed by the Parliament to regulate trading in forward contracts. This Act established the Forward Markets Commission-Under Section 14A of the Act an association could not carry on business in forward contracts except in accordance with the condition of a certificate of registration granted to it fay the Commission. The petitioner made an application for registration on 15th December, 1962 A...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kulsumum Nisan Vs. Mohammad Farooq and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All479
ORDERD.P. Uniyal, J.1. This application in revision Is from an order of the Additional Civil Judge, Pilibhit allowing the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint by, impleading one Akhtar-ul-Zama as defendant No. 2 in the suit.2. It appears that suit No. 12 of 1057 was stayed under Section 10 C. P. C. by the Civil Judge during the pendency of F. A. No. 207 of 1957 in this Court inasmuch as the matter in issue in the present suit was also directly and substantially in issue between the parties in the said First Appeal. It was said that the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for amendment by impleading defendant no. 2 as a party to the suit as the trial of the same had been stayed under Section 10 C. P. C. The learned Civil Judge repelled the contention and allowed the amendment.3. In this Court it was strenuously urged that Section 10 was a complete ban, to the making of an interlocutory order In the suit which had been stayed under that Section. Str...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Adarsh Construction Company (Dissolved Firm).
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR796(All)
V. G. OAK J. - This special appeal arises out of assessment process under the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereafter referred to as the Act). Adarsh Construction Company is a firm consisting of three partners. On October 13, 1961, the firm furnished a statement under sub-section (3) of section 22 of the Act with respect to income for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61. The same day the Income-tax Officer was informed that the firm not in a position to file all the documents mentioned in the notice section 22(4). The Income-tax Officer took up the position the firm had failed to comply with the notice served upon it under 22(4). On November 30, 1961, an assessment order was passed section 23 (4) of the Act on the footing that the firm had failed to comply with the notice under section 22(4) of the Act. A notice of demand was also issued on that basis. The firm filed in this court a writ petition challenging the assessment order dated November 30, 1961, and the demand notice. The writ pet...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Nath, Minor Under Guardian Sahu Girdhar Lal Vs. Shri Ram Bharosey ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All333
Oak, J.1. This special appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment and damages. Shiv Nath brought the suit against Ram Bharosey Lal in the Court of the Munsif of Moradabad on these allegations.2. The plaintiff is the owner of a certain shop situate in the city of Moradabad. Baldeo Das was the tenant of this shop on a monthly rait of Rs. 10. Baldev Das is dead. Ram Bharosey Lal, defendant is his son. He continued to occupy the shop after his father's death. Defendant's occupation is unlawful. The plaintiff served upon the defendant a notice to quit. But he did not vacate the shop. In fixing a certain machine in the shop, the defendant caused substantial damage to the building. The defendant has wilfully caused a nuisance by fixing this machine in the shop. The plaintiff, therefore, brought the suit for the defendant's ejectment from the shop and to recover a sum of Rs. 60 as damages for use and occupation of the shop.3. The defendant admitted that he was in possession of the shop. But it ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Pal and ors. Vs. Swami Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All282
Lakshmi Prasad, J.1. This is a defendants second appeal. One of the defendants-appellants died during the pendency of the appeal and has been substituted by his heirs. Likewise the plaintiff-respondent died during the pendency of the appeal and has been substituted by his heir Swami Nath.2. The dispute in this case relates to a portion of plot No. 34, 2 bighas 4 biswas and 10 dhurs in area. Relying on a registered patta dated the 10th of October, 1948, executed in his favour by the then zamindar the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit in respect of the disputed piece of land against the defendants-appellants in the year 1950 purporting to be one under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act on the allegation that the plaintiff-respondent was a tenant of the disputed land whereas the defendants-appellants had trespassed on it only a few days before the suit.In defence the detendants-appellants plead ed that they were in possession with the permis sion of the zamindar ever since December, 192...
Tag this Judgment!Gaddarmal Hiralal and anr. Vs. Chandrabhan Agarwal and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All292
D.S. Mathur, J. 1. This is an appeal by Messrs Gaddarmal Hira Lal through Roshan La! and also by Roshan Lal, defendants, against the order dated 28-2-1963 of the Additional Civil judge of Agra allowing in part the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act of Messrs. Chandrabhan Agarwal and Co., plaintiff, by referring the disputes relating to the forward transaction of Laha only to arbitration by a panel of arbitrators to be constituted under the term and byelaws of the Agra Merchants' Chamber, Ltd., Agra (to be referred hereinafter as the 'Chamber'). 2. The Chamber has its own byelaws, one of which prescribes compulsory arbitration in disputes not only between the members thereof but also between the members and non-members. The plaintiff firm is a trading member of the Chamber and it carries on the business of for ward transaction through 'dalals registered with the Chamber The plaintiff's case is that the de fendants entered into certain forward transactions with the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Raj Singh Vs. Sanchalak Panchayat Raj, U.P. Govt., Lucknow and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All246; (1968)ILLJ407All
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of two orders passed respectively by the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Director of Panchayat Raj Uttar Pradesh in both of which it was held that the petitioner was not entitled to his salary for the period between 23rd May 1953 to 30th April, 1956 on the ground that his claim was time-barred. It raises an important question of law-namely, whether the Government, while considering what salaries and allowances should be paid to a Government servant who was removed from service but whose removal is set aside by the civil court and who is consequently reinstated in pursuance of the Court's decision, can take into consideration the provisions of the Limitation Act and decide that any part of his salary shall not be paid on the ground that his claim is time-barred. The petitioner's case has had a long and chequered history and it is necessary to relate very briefly the facts. On Jun...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »