Allahabad Court March 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.
Ramchand and Sons Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All383
Pathak, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 23A (1) were rightly applied?'2. Before we come to the controversy itself, a few preliminary facts are necessary.3. M/s Ramchand & Sons, a partnership firm, owned a sugar mill and carried on the business of manufacturing and selling sugar. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1953-54 the assessee was incorporated as a private limited company for the purpose of carrying on the same business, the assets of which it acquired from the firm. Although the written down value of the assets was entered in the books of the firm at Rs. 11,53,612/- they were purchased by the assessee at Rs. 41,69 681/-.4. In the assessment proceeding for the assessment year 1953-54, the first year of assessment in respect of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer declined to accept the valuation of Rs...
Chandi Prasad Vs. Chaudhari Chandra Pratap Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All119; 1970CriLJ193
Uniyal, J.1. This application in revision arises put of proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. and is directed against an order passed by the Magistrate in terms of Section 146 (1-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The dispute related to a plot of land which each party claimed to be in his exclusive possession. On being satisfied that there was an apprehension of the breach of the peace in respect of the land in question, the Magistrate attached the property and followed the procedure laid down in Sub-clause (1) of Section 145, Criminal P. C. After perusing the written statements, affidavits and other documents filed by the parties concerned, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that it was a fit case which should be referred to the Civil Court under Sub-section (1) of Section 146, Criminal P. C. The parties were directed to appear before the Civil Court and they adduced evidence in support of their respective claims as respects of the fact of possession of the subject of ...
C.K. Avasthi Vs. Chairman, Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Tec ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All213; (1970)ILLJ387All
ORDERR.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner is a junior stenographer in the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. The next higher post is that of a senior stenographer. A number of vacancies in the cadre of senior stenographers having arisen, appointments were made by promotion from among the junior stenographers. The appointments were made upon the recommendations of a Selection Committee constituted for the purpose. Two junior stenographers, K. K. Bajpai and H. K. Naithani, were appointed as senior stenographers. The petitioner, C. K. Avasthi, who claims to be senior in service, was not appointed. The petitioner addressed a representation to the Director of the Institute, but his representation was rejected by the Director who pointed out that the Selection Committee had taken into consideration 'all relevant material including the seniority and past record of the persons concerned' for the purpose of recommending the promotion of junior stenographers to the higher post and did not find ...
Chiranjilal Kallu Ram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1968All349
Sahgal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Messrs. Chiranji Lal Kallu Ram, owners or a passenger bus registered in Delhi State in their name with registration mark DLP 3677, praying for the quashing of an order passed by respondent No. 3 Shri G. B. Lal, Deputy Transport Commissioner (Passenger Tax), U.P., Lucknow, on the 1st of December, 1967, for the suspension of the registration certificate of the vehicle for a period of four months from the date of surrender, the order sought to be quashed being purported to be passed under Section 33 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be described as 'the Act'), read with Rules 33 and 244 (a) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 (hereinafter to be described as 'the Rules).2. The petitioners case is that on a special permit issued by the Delhi State Transport Authority on the 7th of July, 1967, their staff brought a reserved party from Delhi to Aligarh in that bus. The bus was being taken back to Delhi o...
Smt. Sarla Devi Vs. Shri Balwan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All601
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. This civil revision is directed against an order passed by Sri Abu Saad, II Additional District Judge, Meerut, on 14-4-1965, in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction conferred by Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), setting aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Varanasi, granting to Smt. Sarla Devi, applicant before us, the expenses of the proceedings and maintenance pendente lite. The learned single Judge before whom the revision application came up for hearing has referred the following question of law to us for decision:--'Does an appeal lie against an order passed on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act ?'The question, therefore, is whether the appeal before Sri Abu Saad was competent under the provisions of Section 28 of the Act.2. Section 24 of the Act reads:--'Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no in...
Maharaj Singh Vs. Smt. Uma Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All603
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. In this case the question referred to us by a learned single Judge of this Court is:--'Does an appeal lie against an order passed on an application under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954?'Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reads:--'Where in any proceeding under Chapter V of Chapter VI it appears to the district court that the wife has no independent income sufficient for her support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife, order the husband to pay to her the expenses of the proceeding, and weekly or monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the husband's income, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.'Section 39 of the Act reads:--'All decrees and orders made by the court in any proceeding under Chapter V or Chapter VI shall be enforced in like manner as the decrees and orders of the court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdicti...
Bharat Glass Factory Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1968
Reported in: [1968]21STC445(All)
R.S. Pathak, J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership-firm. It was assessed to sales tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act respectively for the assessment year 1964-65 by two separate assessment orders made on 27th January, 1966. The assessment orders were made ex parte as no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Sales Tax Officer on the date fixed for hearing. The petitioner filed appeals against the assessment orders on 19th October, 1966, and the appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, by an order dated 25th July, 1967. The petitioner prays for certiorari.2. It appears that copies of the assessment orders were sent by post under registered cover by the Sales Tax Officer. They were delivered to one R.M. Saxena. The petitioner says that R.M. Saxena is merely a relation of the managing partner but is neither a member of the staff nor has anything to do with the business of the petitioner. He...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›