Allahabad Court April 1968 Judgments
National Carbon Co. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All205; [1969]23STC388(All)
Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') soliciting the opinion of this Court on the following question of law:--'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to claim benefit of Article 286(1)(b) for sales in the course of export outside India even though the actual delivery of the goods was taken by the purchasers inside India.' This reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court constituted by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. C. Manchanda and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. H. Beg. The Division Bench noticed that two cases involving somewhat similar question had already been decided by two different Benches of this Court and the decisions in the two cases were somewhat conflicting even though the facts in the two cases were different. It is for this reason that the instant case has been referred to Full Bench.2. The facts of the case, as set out in the state...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeo Krishen Nagar Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ1154
ORDERS.D. Singh, J.1. This is an application under Section 561A of the Criminal P.C., for certain proceedings under 3. 147 of the Code pending in the Court of the City Magistrate, Varanasi, to be quashed.2. There is a tank known as Krukraehetra tank which has land adjoining or appurtaining to it. The tank along with the adjoining land is claimed by the applicant to be his personal property and probably the contention of the Hindu public is that this is a public-trust in which the Hindu public at large hare some interest, their main interest being to take a dip in the tank on the occasions of solar eclipse. Bival claims for this property haven come up before the Courts on occasions more than once and reference is made to it in the? affidavit filed by the applicant and there has been no serious challenge to this allegation on behalf of the opposite parties. In 1962 proceedings were taken in respect of this property under Section 187 of the Code, but the applicant went up in revision to t...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotey Lal and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1968All358
R. Chandra, J.1. Behari (25), resident of village Koilabia, police station Gola, district Kheri, and Gokul (30), resident of village Bhalliya, police station Gola, district, Kheri, have filed two separate jail appeals against their conviction under Sections 302, 324 and 323 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri. Chhotey Lal (30), and Chet Ram (25), residents of village Teliya Kunda, police station Gola, district Kheri, have filed a represented appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 1966) against their conviction in the same trial, for the offences under Sections 302, 324 and 323 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. Under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, each of them has been awarded life imprisonment. Similarly, under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, each of them has been sentenced to undergo 2 years' and 6 months' rigorous imprisonment, respectively. Since all these appeals arise out of the same trial we propose...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Bisheshwar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1968
Reported in: [1970]76ITR653(All)
W. Broome, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the order of Brijlal Gupta J., dated July 19, 1962, by which he allowed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 325 of 1962, and issued a direction to the income-taxauthorities not to impose a penalty on the petitioner, Risheshwar Lal, in respect of the assessment for the year 1943-1944.2. The assessment in question was completed on June 24, 1944, and on the same date a notice under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act of 1922 was issued, calling upon the assessee to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for concealment of income in respect of his partnership firm. The petitioner (the present respondent) sent a reply to this notice on October 12, 1944, after which nothing was done by the department for 12 years. Then on April 16, 1956, another notice was issued to Bisheshwar Lal under Section 28 of the Act, to which he again sent a reply on June 11, 1956, pointing out, inter alia, that the firm in question had been dis...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Through Secy. Home Dept. Lucknow and ors. Vs. Jaswant Si ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1968
Reported in: AIR1968All383
Pathak, J. 1. This Special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of a learned Single Judge allowing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution2. The respondent carries on business as an arms Healer at 'Gorakhpur under the name Gorakhpur Arms Corporation and at Lucknow under the name 'Indian Arms Corporation The licences held by the respondent in the name of the Gorkhpur Arms Corporation in Forms Nos. IX, X, XII and XIII and in the name ot the Indian Arms Corporation in Forms Nos IX, X and XIi expired and the respondent applied for their renewal The State Government by two separate orders dated August 17, 1964 refused to renew the licences. The orders purported to be under Section 14(1)(b)(i)(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 15(3) of that Act. The orders declared that the State Government had reason to believe that the respondent was not fit to hold the licences It came to that belief on information which appeared to show that the respondent had contravened the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Vyas Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All480
ORDERM.H. Beg, J.1. The petitioner was appointed the Secretary of the Municipal Board of Allahabad (now Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad) on 13-8-1946 on probation on a salary of Rs. 200/- per month and was confirmed on 13-8-1947 when he was drawing Rs. 210/- per month; He was appointed on 12-12-1957 as Additional Executive Officer of the Municipal Board on a salary of Rs. 500-50-750 EB-1000. The post on which he was appointed on 12-12-1957 was created on a temporary basis by the Administrator, Allahabad, who also invested the petitioner with power to perform the functions and to discharge the duties of an Executive Officer in respect of the department under his charge. This post was created after the matter had been referred to the Government and sanction obtained from it to the creation of the post. A letter dated 6-12-1957 from the Commissioner, Local Bodies, and Secretary, L. S. G. Branch, U. P. Lucknow, to the Administrator, Municipal Board, Allahabad, indicating that the creation of t...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar and ors. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1968All407
Lakshmi Prasad, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the order dated 6-7-1966 by which our brother Jagdish Sahai dismissed the appellants' petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellants preferred an objection under Section 9 U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was decided in their favour by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 15-5-1964. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 preferred an appeal from that order of the Consolidation Officer and the same was dismissed on 20-6-1964 by an Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Even though the provisions of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by U P. Act VIII of 1963 applied to the case and as such a second appeal should have been preferred from the order dated 20-6-1964, respondents Nos. 3 to 6 preferred a revision and the same was allowed by a Deputy Director. Aggrieved by the order passed in revision the appellants approached this court by a petition under Article 226 praying for the quashing of the...
Tag this Judgment!Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Gupta Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All503; 1969CriLJ1217
ORDERS.D. Singh, J. 1. This is an application in revision, against an order passed by the Special Judge, Mirzapur under Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant Bhuwaneshwar Praead Gupta. 2. The case against Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Gupta under Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code was first investigated by Vishwanath Singh, Station Officer of Police Station Kon district Mirzapur. He prepared charge sheet and forwarded it to the Superintendent of Police for onward transmission to the Magistrate. The Superintendent of Police seems to have realised that under Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947 this investigation could not be made by a Police officer below the rank of theDeputy Superintendent of Police without the order of a Magistrate of a first class. He, therefore, directed the investigation being made afresh by Circle Officer, Sri Ram Kumar Lal, who probably obtained the orders of the Magistrate and investigated the case and thereafter submitted...
Tag this Judgment!Punni Lal Vs. G.O.C.-in-chief, Central Command and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ694All
Rajeshwari Prasad, J.1. Punni Lal has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He was a peon in the Cantonment Board, Allahabad, and was getting a salary of Rs. 55 per month for the last twenty-four years as alleged by him. From the office of the Cantonment Board, two typewriters were stolen in the night between 10 and 11 February 1960.2. The Executive Officer of the Board lodged a first Information report with the police. On the following morning, the Executive Officer sent for the petitioner at 8 a.m. and maltreated him. Thereafter, he handed over the petitioner to the police without any reasonable cause. He wastaken in police custody and was given severe beating and subjected to torture. He was released at 10 p.m. and he got his injuries medically examined. After four or five days. he filed a complaint against the Executive Officer as well as the local police under Sections 342, 323, 504 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The JudicialOfficer, Karchhana, All...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Om Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR584(All)
V. G. OAK C.J. - The following two questions have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad :'1. Whether the assessment of the firm, after the share income had been taxed in the hands of the partner, was valid ?2. Whether the assessment proceeding for the year 1956-57 could be valid initiated against the firm after its dissolution ?'Messrs, Hari Om Company, Kanpur (a dissolved firm), is the assessee, 1956-57 is the assessment year. In the first instance, the Income-tax Officer assessed the partners of the firm individually. thereafter, he proceeded to assess the firm as such. The firm raised an objection that the assessment of the firm was not permissible in law after the assessment of the individual partners. Thus contention was overruled by the Income-tax Officer. The firm applied for registration. That claim was rejected. The Income-tax Officer proceeded to make the assessment on the footing that it was an unregistered firm. The firm challenged thes...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »