Allahabad Court November 1968 Judgments
Ram Swarup Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh and a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All182; 1972CriLJ1119
Lokur, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been referred to a Division Bench by Hon'ble Asthana, J. The material undisputed facts may be stated thus: The petitioner. Ram Swarup, and six others were holding stage carriage permits on Meerut-Rohta-Bhnauli-Baraut route under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. On a proposal of these operators, the Regional Transport Authority decided, with the approvalof the State Transport Authority, to take the route viz., Barnawa and the modified route was Meerut Rohta Barnasa Binauli Baraut. Thereupon the Regional Transport Authority invited applications for the modified route and the petitioner, Ram Swamp, and others made applications for variation in their permits in accordance with the modified route. Meerut Sardhana Passenger Transport Assocation objected to the variation in the permits of the petitioner and others, but the Regional Transport Authority held the objection as time-barred and granted variation in the permits of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Lal Babu Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR503(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereafter referred to as the Act. Messrs. Panna Lal Babu Lal is the assessee. This firm was constituted under a deed of partnership executed on November 30, 1942. At that time there were four partners: 1. Babu Lal, 2. Sura] Prasad, 3. Girdharilal and 4. Pannalal. The firm was registered under Section 26A of the Act for the assessment year 1944-45. Registration was renewed from year to year up to the assessment year 1956-57. Girdharilal, partner, died in July, 1954, during the accounting period corresponding to the assessment year 1955-56. In spite of Girdharilal's death, registration was renewed for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57. An application for renewal of registration was filed for the assessment year 1957-58. This application for renewal was signed by Babu Lal, Suraj Prasad, Panna Lal and one Hari Shanker. It was explained on behalf of the firm that Girdharilal was dead ; and hi...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeo Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR520(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against proceedings for the recovery of income-tax dues. One Baijnath Prasad was assessed to income-tax. The income-tax dues were not paid. The authorities, therefore, proceeded to recover the arrears of income-tax. A certain house was attached on the footing that it belonged to Baijnath Prasad, defaulter. Baijnath Prasad's grand-father, Baldeo Prasad, filed an objection to the effect that the property did not belong to the defaulter, but belonged to the objector. On receiving this objection, the Additional District Magistrate, Banda, passed an order postponing the sale. This order was passed on September 6, 1966. That order was however, recalled by the Collector of Banda in the evening of September 8, 1966. He directed the Tahsildar to proceed with the sale of the property attached. In accordance with that direction, the Tahsildar put the property to auction. The house was auctioned for a sum of Rs. 4,400...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. Allied Chemicals, 77 Factory Area, K ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All20; [1969]23STC165(All)
Pathak, J. 1. The assesses, M/s. Allied Chemicals, Kanpur, is a dealer in chemicals. 2. During assessment proceedings under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 for the assessment year 1956-57 it disclosed that the sales effected by it within UttarPradesh during the year amounted to Rs. 7,642/12/3 and the sales made outside Uttar Pradesh during the same period amounted to Rs. 15,591/11. The assesses contended that the sales made outside Uttar Pradesh fell outside the purview of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and could not be taken into consideration for any purpose whatsoever under the Act. According to the assessee, if the turnover of the sales made outside Uttar Pradesh was excluded, the turnover of the remaining sales being Rs. 7.642/12/3 would fall below the prescribed minimum turnover liable to tax and, therefore, the assessee would not be liable to tax at all. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee. He held that by virtue of Explanation II to Clause (h) of Section 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Hari Om
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All542
Satish Chandra, J.1. The Union of India, the defendant, has appealed. The suit was for a declaration that the order of the plaintiff's dismissal from service violated Article 311 of the Constitution and was null and void, and for past pendents lite and future salary. The suit has been decreed by both the courts below.2. Hari Om, the plaintiff-respondent, was employed by the Union of India as Sub-post Master at Lesari Gate Post Office, Meerut. At the instance of the Post Master General, Calcutta, the Special Police Establishment enquired into the allegations against the plaintiff that he was putting used postal stamps on parcels etc. sent out from Lesari Gate Post Office. The Lesari Gate Post Office as well as the house of the plaintiff was searched on 8th July, 1953, at which a good number of used stamps were recovered. On the commencement of the police investigation the plaintiff was suspended with effect from 15th July, 1953. The police ultimately did not submit a charge-sheet, but, ...
Tag this Judgment!Duryodhan Vs. Sitaram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All1
B. Dayal, J. 1. This appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has been referred to this Full Bench because there appeared to be an apparent conflict between two Division Bench cases of this Court reported in Vishwanath Prasad v. Malkhan Singh Sharma, : AIR1964All181 and B. P. Maurya v. Election Tribunal, 1964 All LJ 155 on the question whether the Election Tribunal while hearing an election petition had the power to dismiss the election petition under Order 9, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code for default of appearance of the election-petitioner and also to restore it in a proper case under Order 9, Rule 9 of the same Code.2. After hearing learned counsel for both the sides at length, I have come to the conclusion that in this appeal this question is of a mere academic interest and it is unnecessary to decide it.3. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. Respondent No. 1 (Shri Sitaram) (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was elected a member...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Munna Lal Vs. Seth Jai Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All257
G.C. Mathur, J. 1. The following question has been referred to this Full Bench for opinion:-- 'Whether a decision recorded specifically under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure would exclude relief under the provisions contained in Order 9 of the Civil P. C. irrespective of the question whether, in recording its decision under Rule 3, the Court acted rightly or wrongly?' The question arises in the following circumstances: A suit was filed by the respondent against the appellant for rendition of accounts and recovery of commission. May 6, 1965, was an adjourned date of hearing. On this date, the defendant was absent and the Court recorded an order in the order sheet (English note) to the following effect:-- 'This is an adjourned date of hearing because the defendant had been allowed adjournment on the previous date, viz., 14-4-1965. The defendant to-day has failed to appear and, in my view, this suit should be heard under Rule 3 of Order 17, Civil P. C. I accordingly procee...
Tag this Judgment!Sool Chand Ram Sewak Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR466(All)
T.P. Mukherjee, J. 1. This consolidated reference made by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arises out of three assessments relating to the assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54. The facts are as follows :The assessee, at the material time, was an unregistered firm constituted of two partners, Sool Chand and Ramsewak, each of whom had equal shares in the partnership. The two partners, before the constitution of the firm, were members of a Hindu undivided family styled M/s. Mannoo Lal Mool Chand. The family claimed total disruption in the assessment year 1948-49 and applied for an order under Section 25A(1), Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereafter referred to as the Act), but the application was rejected by the Income-tax Officer. In the alleged partition, the business carried on by the family was allocated to Sool Chand and Ramsewak. These two members thereafter constituted a partnership and carried on the business under the firm name...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Moti Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR507(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. Messrs. Kanhaiya Lal Moti Lal, Banaras, was a Hindu undivided family. In connection with the assessment for 1946-47 it was claimed that there was a complete partition of the Hindu undivided family with effect from September 26, 1944. It was further claimed that the business was thereafter continued as partnership business by members of the erstwhile family. An application for registration of the firm was filed along with the deed of partnership dated September 26, 1944. The application for registration in the year 1946-47 remained pending for several years. The application was ultimately dismissed on March 15.19.51. In the meanwhile, the firm filed two applications for renewal of registration for the assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49. The two applications for renewal of registration were filed on December 9, 1947, and July 12, 1948, respectively. Both the applications for renewal of registration were dismissed by the Income-tax Officer on various grounds. The decisi...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Bhan Pande Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All560
ORDERLakshmi Prasad, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner makes the following prayers:(a) That a writ of certiorari may be issued to respondent No. 1 ordering it to produce the U. P. Foodgrains (Restrictions on Hoarding) Order, 1966 as amended by Notification dated February 1, 1967 and Notification No. 3528 XXIXD 63 -- 1966 dated June 1, 1967 and the same may be quashed by this Hon'ble Court.(b) To issue a writ of certiorari ordering the respondent No. 2 to produce a copy of the charges framed by him against the petitioner under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 on May 25, 1967 and the same may be quashed by this Hon'ble Court.(c) That a writ of prohibition may be Issued to the respondent No. 2 forbidding it to continue the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955.(d) That a writ of mandamus may be issued to the respondent No. 2 commanding him to release the foodgrains seized from the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »