Allahabad Court January 1969 Judgments
Shri Narendra Bahadur Vs. Shri Shanker Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All180
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. In the application No. 116 of 1966 made by defendant-petitioner under Article 133(1)(b) and (c) read with Article 135 of the Constitution of India, the questions raised were whether in the circumstances of the case a certificate could be granted under Clauses (b) and (c) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution. Mr. Saksena learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner conceded before the Division Bench before which the matter had originally came up that Clause (a) does not apply.2. The facts giving rise to this application in short are that the plaintiff-opposite party filed suit No. 54 of 1946 in the Court of Munsif (City) Saharanpur for the possession over a plot of land situate in the city of Saharanpur after demolition of certain constructions made by the defendant-petitioner. The suit for the purpose of jurisdiction was valued at Rs. 1500 in the plaint.3. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the value of the constructions made by defendant-petitioner was ...
Tag this Judgment!State Govt. of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kashi Prasad Saksena
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1969
Reported in: AIR1969All363
Oak, C.J.1. This special appeal arises out of a proceeding under the Notaries Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Kashi Prasad Saxena, respondent, was enrolled as a Notary public in the year 1959 to practise as such at Lucknow. His certificate was renewed for a period of three years with effect from 20-8-1962. One Krishna Chandra, Advocate made a complaint against Kashi Prasad Saxena, Notary public. The State Government referred the complaint for enquiry to the competent authority, namely the District Judge, Lucknow. He framed three charges against Kashi Prasad Saxena and submitted a report that the charges had been proved. On receiving that report from the competent authority, the State Government issued a notification on 11-3-1964 under Section 10 of the Act cancelling the certificate of practice granted to Kashi Prasad Saxena. He was perpetually debarred from practising as a Notary public. Kashi Prasad Saxena filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the State Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Jewellers Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1969
Reported in: [1969]24STC291(All)
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. These two references Under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have been made by the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, U.P., at the instance of M/s. Kashi Jewellers, the assessee (hereinafter called as the 'assessee').2. The assessment years relevant for these references are 1958-59 and 1959-60. The assessee is a dealer in ornaments and bullions. For the year 1958-59 he disclosed a turnover of Rs. 5,65,962.67 and for the year 1959-60 of Rs. 6,19,902.67. The assessee's version was accepted and the final assessment orders were made under Rule 41(5) of the rules framed under the Act.3. A little later the assessing authority came in possession of certain documents on the basis of which proceedings against the assessee Under Section 21 of the Act for his reassessment for the two years mentioned above were started.4. The assessing authority exercising his 'best judgment' fixed the escaped turnover at a figure of Rs. 7 lacs for each of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. SarIn Chemical Laboratory
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1969
Reported in: [1969]24STC406(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This and the connected reference submitted to this court under Section 11(1) read with Section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Agra, raised a common question of law arising out of assessment for the years 1956-57 and 1957-58 in respect of the same assessee. They are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order. The common question that has been submitted for the opinion of this court is :Whether in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, 'tooth-powder' is 'cosmetic or toilet requisite' and whether the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Agra, was justified in treating the tooth-powder as an unspecified commodity liable to tax at all points of sale?2. The assessee carries on the business of manufacture and sale of tooth-powder under the name and style of Sarin Chemical Laboratory at Agra. The trade name under which the tooth-powder is marketed is Sarin Dant Manjan...
Tag this Judgment!Pooran Mal Bansal Vs. Smt. Chhutto Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All188
ORDERS.N. Singh, J. 1. This revision is directed against the decision of Munsif, Agra, deciding the issue of jurisdiction. 2. The issue about jurisdiction arose in the following circumstances. It appears that the plaintiff in the instant suit is successor-in-interest of the mortgagors who had mortgaged the property in dispute on 8th March 1943 in favour of two persons Sri Hazari Lal Jain and Sri Raghubir Saran for a consideration of Rs. 8500. The mortgage deed which had been executed in favour of these two persons showed that each one of them had advanced Rs. 4250 and in the mortgage deed it was recited that the mortgage had been executed in favour of the two mortgagors (sic mortgagees) giving them possession over half of the property. The words used in the mortgage deed are 'Ba hissa masawi rehan dakhli kiya'. This would show that Hazari Lal was put in possession over half of the property for a consideration of Rs. 4250 and Raghubir Saran was put in possession over the other half of t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagat Ram Jai NaraIn Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1969
Reported in: [1969]24STC287(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The assessee is a sarrafa dealer carrying on business at Kanpur. In proceedings for the assessment of sales tax under the U. P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1957-58 his account books were accepted and on their basis a turnover was determined at Rs. 14,41,096-10-6. Subsequently, upon information received from a dismissed munim of the assessee that the assessee was in the habit of not recording all the transactions in the account books, the Sales Tax Officer initiated proceedings under Section 21 of the Act for reassessment of the turnover. He examined three parchas containing entries of sales made on 9th July, 1957, 15th November, 1957, and 29th March, 1958. Upon verification with the account books the Sales Tax Officer found that entries totalling Rs. 651 mentioned in the parcha for 9th July, 1957, and one entry of Rs. 154 in the parcha for 29th March, 1958, were not entered in the account books. He made a best judgment assessment and estimated the escaped tu...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubar Dayal Kanodia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All143
ORDERA.K. Kirty, J. 1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution raise a common question for determination. In both the petitions it is prayed that a Writ of certiorari be granted quashing the order dated 27-7-1967 which was passed individually against each petitioner. It is further prayed that writ of mandamus be issued directing the opposite parties not to disconnect or remove telephone No. 32702 in case of the petitioner in the first case and telephone No. 33262 in case of the petitioner in the second case. In both the petitions there is a further prayer also for an interim order commanding the opposite parties not to disconnect the said telephones. This Court issued an interim order in each case. It, however, appears that in Writ petition No. 3159 of 1967 the telephone of the petitioner was actually disconnected before the interim order passed by this Court was communicated to the Authorities concerned. In the second case, however, the stay order was communicated before...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. A.J. Faridi Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All383
ORDERLakshmi Prasad, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The prayer in the petition is that the following notification dated 18th August, 1966 published in the Gazette of India dated 27th August, 1966 be quashed:'Whereas in the opinion of the Central Government the book entitled 'Tashkent Declaration and the Problem of Indo-Pak Minorities' written by Dr. A. J. Faridi, and printed at Chowdhury Press, 7 Zamir Mansion, Gwynne Road, Lucknow, contains prejudicial reports as defined in Clause (7) of Rule 35 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 45 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, the Central Government hereby- (a) prohibits the sale or distribution of the said book or any extract therefrom or of any translation thereof, and declares the said book and every copy or translation thereof or extract therefrom, to be forfeited to Government; and (b) directs every person possessing any copy of the said book ...
Tag this Judgment!Tilok Chand Prasan Kumar Vs. the Sales Tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1969
Reported in: [1970]25STC118(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner carries on business as a dealer in cereals and pulses. He has been assessed to purchase tax under Section 3-D(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act on the turnover of dal for the assessment year 1966-67 by an assessment order dated 30th June, 1968. The petitioner prays for certiorari against the order.2. Section 3-D(1) levies a tax on the turnover of first purchases made by a dealer at such rates, not exceeding two paise per rupee in the case of food-grains including cereals and pulses, and with effect from such date, as may be notified by the State Government in that behalf. By Notification No. ST-7122/X-900(16)-64 dated 1st October, 1964, issued under Section 3-D(1) the State Government notified that with effect from 1st October, 1964, the turnover of first purchases in respect foodgrains, including cereals and pulses, would be liable to tax under Section 3-D at 1.5 paise per rupee. The petitioner alleges that arhar ki dal was purchased by the dal mills and af...
Tag this Judgment!Behariji Dass, Civil and Sessions Judge, Sultanpur and ors. Vs. Chandr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1969
Reported in: AIR1969All594
Oak, C.J.1. The question for consideration in these connected appeals is whether certain persons should be prohibited from functioning as District Judges in Uttar Pradesh. The three appeals arise out of a writ petition filed in the year 1967 by Shri Chandra Mohan against the State of Uttar Pradesh and 15 others.2. Several years ago, the State Government established U. P. Higher Judicial Service. This service consists of two grades: (1) District & Sessions Judges, and (2) Civil & Sessions Judges. Under Article 309 of the Constitution, the Governor framed rules for appointment to U. P. Higher Judicial Service. These rules are known as U. P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1953 (hereafter referred to as the Rules). The Rules provide two separate methods for appointment of Civil & Sessions Judges. The first method is by promotion from the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Judicial Branch). The second method is by direct recruitment of advocates and Judicial Magistrates as Civil & Sessions Judges...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »