Allahabad Court January 1968 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
ikramuddIn and anr. Vs. U.P. Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1968
Reported in: [1968]38CompCas412(All)
Yashoda Nandan, J. 1. The petitioners claimed to be members of the U.P. Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ' bank '), a society registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act.2. A dispute arose between the petitioners and the bank about the petitioners ' claim for return of their goods said to be worth about Rs. 16,000 pledged with the bank. The petitioners claimed the pledged goods and/or Rs. 16,000 as their value plus damages at the rate of Rs. 150 per day from 17th August, 1963, for loss alleged to have been suffered by them in business on account of the failure of the bank to return the pledged goods. The petitioners submitted in writing the dispute to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, for decision in April, 1964. The dispute was referred for decision by the Registrar to Sri Jai Ram Prasad, Industrial Inspector, as the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator refused to decide the question of the petitioners' claim for return of the pledged goods or...
Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur Town
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1968All285
Oak, C.J. 1. This second appeal by plaintiff arises out of a suit for permanent injunction. The Tulsipur Sugar Company Limited filed a suit against the Town Area Committee, Tulsipur, on the following allegations.2. The plaintiff is A joint stock company carrying on the business or manufacturing ana selling sugar at the Sugar Factory at Tulsipur. The factory is situate within the agricultural village of Shitalapur, district Gonda. The plaintiff has to import stores and materials for the purposes of the factory. In the year 1955 a notification under Section 3 of the U. P. Town Areas Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', was issued establishing a Town Area at Tulsipur. The notification under Section 3 of the Act is void and has no legal effect. In tha year 1959 the authorities took certain steps to introduce octroi duty for the Town Area. A series of notifications were published in 1959 and 1960 on this subject. These notifications also are invalid. The result is that no octroi duty ...
Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. Vs. Bharat Engineering and Constructi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All188
Oak, C.J. 1. This is an application under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), M/s. Bharat Engineering and Construction Company is the assessee. The assessment year is 1944-45. Under Section 34 read with section 23(3) of the Act the Income Tax Officer made the assessment. In making the assessment certain receipts of the assessee were treated as income. The assessee protested that these items did not constitute income of the assessee. When the matter went before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench at Allahabad, the Appellate Tribunal partly accepted the assessee's claim, Two items of Rs. 2,50,000/- and 40,000/- were excluded from the assessee's income, The Commissioner of Income Tax, U. P., filed before the Appellate Tribunal an application under Section 66(1) of the Act requesting for reference of two questions of law to this Court. The application was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Commissioner of Income Tax, U. P...
Ram Swarup Vs. Mahabir Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All440
ORDERJ.N. Takru, J.1. This is an objector's application in revision against an order of the learned 3rd Addl. Munsif, Allahabad, rejecting his objection.2. The brief facts, necessary for appreciating the point in controversy, are as follows;A decree for possession of a house was passed against the judgment-debtor-opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 and in favour of decree-holder. Opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 by the Court of the 3rd Addl. Munsif, Allahabad. On the 31st October, 1966, the Amin went to deliver possession of the said house to the decree-holders-opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 but he was obstructed by Ram Swarup, the objector-applicant, who is the father-in-law of judgment-debtor opposite party no. 2, from doing so. The Amin made a report about the said obstruction to the learned 3rd Addl. Munsif on the 4th November, 1966, and on the following day the decree-holder opposite parties also moved an application to the same effect before the learned 3rd Additional Munsif and prayed for...
Hanuman Mills Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1968
Reported in: AIR1968All604
J.S. Trivedi, J.1. A complaint under Section 303 of the Companies Act was filed by the Registrar of Companies with the allegation that on December 27, 1960, Dhamodar Das had resigned from the directorship of the Hanuman Mills Private Ltd., and Ram Narain Lal was appointed in his place the same day. It was alleged that Section 303(2) required the company to send to the Registrar information of any change among its directors on a prescribed form within a period of twenty-eight days. The change, according to the prosecution, had to be sent in a form known as Form No. 33 on or before January 24, 1961. The said form, however, was presented by the applicants on March 7, 1962, i.e., after a delay of one year, one month and eleven days. As the form was not presented for filing within the statutory period of twenty-eight days, an additional fee of Rs. 112.50 payable for the registration was determined and demanded by the Registrar under Section 611 of the Companies Act which the applicants did ...
income-tax Officer, A-ward, Agra, and Others Vs. Firm Madan Mohan Damm ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1968
Reported in: [1968]70ITR293(All)
BISHAMBHAR DAYAL J. - These connected appeals arise out of writ petitions filed on behalf of several trading units and one trust governed by the members of a certain family in Firozabad against different orders passed by the income-tax department against one or the other of them. Four of these Special Appeals Nos. 89, 90, 91 and 92 of 1967 have been field by the department against the orders of a learned single judge of this court and the other four appeals have been filed by the assessees being Special Appeals Nos. 123, 124, 125 and 127 of 1967. In Firozabad liquid gold is in great demand for decorating glass bangles which are manufactured at Firozabad and which is the main industry there. The learned single judge had given a pedigree in his judgment which brings out the relationship of different members of the family and whose names occur during the proceedings. The main business of the family was carried on in partnership under the name and style of 'Firm Madan Mohan Damma Mal'. Bot...
Krishna Kumar Saxena and ors. Vs. Chief Justice of the High Court of J ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All112
ORDERSatish Chandra, J.1. Petitioners nos. 1 and 2 were enrolled as pleaders by the High Court in 1962. Petitioners nos. 3 and 4 were similarly enrolled in 1964. Petitioners nos. 5 to 9 were also enrolled as pleaders, according to the learned counsel, in 1966. The certificates issued to the petitioners were in due course renewed each year. The current certificate entitles them to practise upto 31st December, 1967. On 20th July, 1967, the Joint Registrar of this Court issued a circular letter to all District Judges indicating that it was doubtful whether the High Court could admit pleaders after the coming into force of Chapter III of the Advocates Act on 1st December, 1961. Under the circumstances it will be advisable for the pleaders enrolled after that date not to apply for renewal of their certificates of practise or for re-enrolment or for simultaneous enrolment but to get themselves enrolled as advocates by moving the Bar Council in the matter. Petitioners nos. 1 and 2 submitted a...
Shabbir Abdul Rehman Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All478; 1969CriLJ1202
ORDERH.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. Applicant Shabbir was convicted by a Magistrate First Class, Moradabad, under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of18 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo six months' further, rigorous imprisonment.2. On appeal his conviction and sentence was affirmed by the temporary Civil & Sessions Judge. Hence this revision.3. According to the prosecution Sri I. P. Aoan, Food Inspector, Municipal Board, Chandausi, purchased 3/4th seer of buffalo milk from the applicant on 8-8-1963 and after undergoing the necessary formalities sent a sample of the same for the examination of the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst analysed the sample and found it deficient in fat contents by about 10 per cent and in non-fatty solids by about 16 per cent. Consequently the applicant was prosecuted on a complaint lodged by the Medical O...
Kailash Nath Agarwal Vs. Amar Nath Agarwal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All82; 1969CriLJ139
ORDERA.K. Kirty, J.1. This case arises out of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code).2. The Magistrate concerned made a reference to the Munsif, West Allahabad under Section 146(1) of the Code to decide the question whether any and which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute on the material date. After the parties had appeared before the Civil Court, an application was made by Kailash Nath Agarwal praying that the first party and other persons, whose affidavits had been filed before the Magistrate under Section 145(1) of the Code, be summoned for purposes of cross-exa-mination. This application was opposed and was dismissed by the learned Munsif holding that it was not within his power to call upon the persons concerned to attend the court for subjecting themselves to cross-examination. Against this order Kailash Nath Agrawal has filed the present revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It ha...
Debi Deen Vs. the Divisional Operating Superintendent, Northern Railwa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1968
Reported in: AIR1968All355b
Lakshmi Prasad, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been referred to a Division Bench by one of us by his order dated 29-3-1967. By this petition the petitioner prays for the quashing of the order of punishment dated 14-9-1965, An-nexure 4, and the appellate order dated 29-12-1965, Annexure 6, by which the petitioner's appeal from the aforesaid order of punishment has been dismissed.2. The grounds that have been taken in the petition are all directed against the appellate order.3. On the dale on which certain charges were served on the petitioner he held the post of a Cabinman. The Assistant Operating Superintendent, Northern Railway, Moradabad, opposite party No. 2, served the charges, a copy of which is Annexure 2 to the petition. The petitioner submitted his explanation to those charges and a copy of the said explanation is Annexure 3 to the petition. After taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner, opposite party No. 2 passed the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »