Allahabad Court August 1968 Judgments
Mahant Manadeo Vs. Mahant Yaduvansh Deo Gopinath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All571
R. Prasad, J. 1. This is a defendant's first appeal. It is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Allahabad in original suit No. 6 of 1953 dated 28th September 1957.2. The plaintiff-respondent Mahant Yaduvansh Deo alias Gopinath filed the suit on certain facts to be narrated hereafter and prayed for the following reliefs-(a) That the deed dated 11th January, 1951 registered on the 18th January 1951, be suitably rectified or set aside in the light of the submissions made in this plaint which is valued at Rs. 31,320/- and the defendant be directed by an injunction to give up the management of the movable and immovable properties of the Sangat, mentioned in the First and the Second schedules of this plaint, and the administration of its other affairs to the plaintiff, and be restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's administration and management of the Sangat, its properties valued Rs. 3,792/- being one-tenth of the total valuation of Rs. 37,920/-. (b)...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Inder Singh Vs. Income-tax Officer, C-ward and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR349(All)
Oak, C.J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against proceedings for reassessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the Act or the 1961 Act), The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It was assessed under the name and style ' Punjab Khalsa Hindu Hotel' for the assessment year 1948-49. At that time Sardar Sunder Singh was the manager of the Hindu undivided family. When the Income-tax Officer, Varanasi, took up proceedings for assessment of the Hindu undivided family for the year 1958-59, he thought that income to the extent of Rs. 80,000 received by the family in the year 1947 had escaped assessment. So, on March 26, 1965, he issued to the assessee a notice under Section 147/148 of the Act proposing reassessment. Sardar Inder Singh, representing the Hindu undivided family has filed this writ petition challenging the notice under Section 148, dated March 26, 1965. Annexure F to the writ petition is a copy of the impugn...
Tag this Judgment!indo-allied Industries Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1968All594
M.H. Beg, J. 1. This is an application under Section 518 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), filed by the voluntary liquidator of Indo-Allied Industries Ltd. The company under liquidation had its registered office at Gorakhpur. Its managing agent, Ram Samujh Singh, opposite party No. 2 (now represented by his heirs), who was in charge of its business at Rangoon, opened an account on behalf of the company in the Rangoon branch of the Punjab National Bank Ltd., New Delhi, opposite party No. 1. The liquidator informed the manager of the Rangoon branch of the Punjab National Bank Ltd., by a letter dated February 6, 1957, that he had been appointed liquidator of the company in a voluntary liquidation on January 6, 1957. He sought information with regard to deposits made at Rangoon on behalf of the company since July 1, 1953. The Rangoon branch of the Punjab National Bank gave details of various deposits made which showed that a sum of Kayats 16,101.75 (each K. i...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi), Through the Director of the Indian Veterinary Re ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All518
Pathak, J.1. The appellant, the Union of India, entered into a contractwith the respondent. Ali Ahmad, for the supply of goods. The contract contained an arbitration clause, A difference having arisen between the parties, the appellant filed an application under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 before the learned Civil Judge, Bareilly, The application was opposed, inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by time. Before the learned Civil Judge, the respondent relied on Article 181 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 while the case of the appellant was that Article 120 applied. The contention of the respondent found favour with the learned Civil Judge and holding that the application was barred by time he rejected it. The appellant has preferred an appeal against that order.2. The appeal came on for hearing before D.S. Mathur, J. who referred the case to a larger Bench. When the appeal was listed before a Division Bench, the Bench expressed the opinion that the question...
Tag this Judgment!Ameer and ors. Vs. Sub-divisional Magistrate, Varanasi (S) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All115
Gangeshwar Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition has come up before us upon a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court. 2. Under Section 53 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), each of the petitioners was ordered by the Nyaya Panchayat of village Khewali, district Varanasi, to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50 with one surety of like amount for keeping the peace for a period of fifteen days. The order of the Nyaya Panchayat provided that in case of default in executing the required bond a penalty of Rs. 5 per day shall be imposed on each defaulting petitioner. Against that order the petitioners filed an application in revision under Section 89 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Varanasi (S) who dismissed it on the ground that no revision lay. The view that the Magistrate took was that an order under Section 53 is not an order in a 'criminal case' as defined in the Act and is, accordingly, not revisable under Section 89. I...
Tag this Judgment!Mela Ram Vs. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Agra Division and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All234
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. This special appeal by Sri Mela Ram, is directed against the judgment of Hon. R. S. Pathak, J. dated 24-9-1966 dismissing writ petition No. 2641 of 1960 filed by the petitioner appellant. The petitioner was in service of Government of India in the Postal Department in the capacity of Supervisor.2. He retired from service. After calculation it was proposed to give him a certain amount of money as gratuity in addition to his monthly pension.3. But before the pension or gratuity was paid and a pension slip or gratuity slip issued to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 3,300 was sought to be deducted from the amount of gratuity proposed to be paid to him.4. He filed writ petition No. 2641 of 1960 challenging the order of the Director, Postal Staff, Lucknow directing the deduction of Rs. 3.300 from his gratuity.5. The writ petition came up for final hearing before Hon. R. S. Pathak, J. who took the view that considering the nature of allegations made, he considered that the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Laltu Vs. Ram Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All583; 1969CriLJ1464
Gangeshwar Prasad, J.1. This application in revision came up before us upon a reference made by Tripathi, J.2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated. One Ram Lal filed a complaint against Laltu applicant under Section 325 I. P. C. in the court of a Magistrate 1st Class at Kanpur. After recording the statements of some witnesses produced by the complainant, the Magistrate framed against the applicant a charge under Section 325 I. P. C. on 22-1-1963. The Magistrate then fixed 5-2-1963 for recording evidence under Section 256 Cr. P. C. noting in his order that the applicant desired to cross-examine all the witnesses examined by the complainant before the framing of the charge. It appears from the record that on 23-1-1963 the complainant filed a list containing the names of six witnesses proposed to be examined by him under Section 256 Cr. P. C. and the Magistrate ordered summonses to be issued for the said witnesses. The list included the name of one Sri Sinha. Sri Sinha was actually e...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Dutt Chunni Lal Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC432(All)
R.K. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business as a dealer in cotton yarn. It was assessed to sales tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 and for the first quarter of the year 1963-64. The assessment orders were followed by notices of demand. Against the assessments the petitioner preferred four separate appeals. During the pendency of the appeals a single recovery proceeding in respect of the tax liability for all the four years was initiated by the Sales Tax Officer. While the recovery proceeding was still in motion, the appeals filed by the petitioner in respect of the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 were partly allowed resulting in a reduction of the tax liability. The remaining appeals were dismissed. The petitioner challenged the validity of the recovery proceeding by Writ Petition No. 222 of 1966 in this Court. The petition was allowed on 26th July, 1966, and the entire recovery proceeding was qua...
Tag this Judgment!Asa Singh Vs. B.D. Sanwal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All474
Dwivedi, J. 1. A Division Bench has referred a question for opinion to the Pull Bench. After hearing counsel for the parties we have made some amendment in the form of the question. The question, as modified by us, is:'While granting permission under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act is the District Magistrate bound to consider the need of the tenant for the accommodation?'2. The decision in Parmeshwar Dayal v. Additional Commissioner, Lucknow, 1963 All LJ 296 = (AIR 1964 All 7) is by a Full Bench. The above question was also considered by the Full Bench. Sri Chief Justice Desai and Sri Justice S. D. Singh took the view that the District Magistrate is not bound to consider the need of the tenant. Sri Justice Oak did not agree with their view. The majority of the Full Bench answered the above question in the negative.3. The Division Bench, while hearing the special appeal, felt that the question required reconsideration in the light of the decision of t...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Shakoor Mohd. Bashir Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR545(All)
Pathak, J.1. Allah Bux and Zahur Bux carried on business in tobacco at Mauranipur. Allah Bux died in 1938. Zahur Bux carried on the business with his sons. In 1942 he gifted the business to his two sons, Mohd. Shakoor and Mohd. Bashir. He died in 1948.2. For the assessment years 1943-44 onwards, Mohd. Shakoor and Mohd. Bashir filed returns of the income from the Mauranipur business showing that the business was being carried on by them. The Income-tax Officer, however; assessed the business profits in the hands of an association of persons, Allah Bux and Zahur Bux, even after the death of Allah Bux. He was, of the view that the association included the sons and grandsons of Zahur Bux. He did not make any assessment on the basis of the returns filed by Mohd. Shakoor and Mohd. Bashir. This continued year after year. In appeals for the assessment years 1945-46 to 1956-57 the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that for those assessment years there was no such association of persons as c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »