Allahabad Court January 1969 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.
Asharfi Lal Vs. Vaid Mohan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All125
Satish Chandra, J. 1. The plaintiff-appellant came to Court for the ejectment of the defendant and for recovery of arrears of rent. 2. The plaintiff was the landlord of the accommodation in dispute of which the defendant was a tenant on Rs. 12.50 p. m.The plaintiff applied for permission under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Rent Control Officer after hearing the parties rejected this application on 15th April, 1960. The plaintiff preferred a revision. The Commissioner decided it on 11th July, 1960, and granted the requisite permission to sue the tenant in ejectment in terms of a compromise filed by the parties' counsel. The tenant then went up to the State Government under Section 7-F of the Act. He challenged the validity of the compromise. The State Government cancelled the Commissioner's order on 21st October, 1961. In the meanwhile, on 7th January, 1961, the plaintiff had filed the present suit. In defence, it w...
Chittarmal NaraIn Dass Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1969
Reported in: [1969]24STC451(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The assessee, which is a partnership firm, deals in foodgrains and oil-seeds. On January 30, 1957, it made an application under Rule 20-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules for exemption from sales tax of the turnover of foodgrains for the assessment year 1956-57. On November 25, 1958, an order of exemption under Rule 20-B was made by the Sales Tax Officer, and the exemption fee was determined at Rs. 3,000. Upon revision application by the assessee, the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax accepted the plea that the quantum of turnover on which the fee should have been computed was much less, and he reduced the exemption fee to Rs. 1,500 by his order dated February 27, 1961.2. Meanwhile, the Sales Tax Officer took assessment proceedings under the U.P. Sales Tax Act in respect of other turnover, and on October 28, 1958, an assessment order was made for the assessment year 1956-57. The assessee had realised Rs. 2,341 as sales tax on the sale of foodgrains made on behalf of U.P. princip...
Raja Anand Brahm Shah Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1969
Reported in: [1971]81ITR540(All)
Pathak, J. 1. This and the connected reference have been made under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act on the following two questions: '(1) Whether arrears of rent of 1359F. and earlier years realised in 1360F. are to be included in the agricultural income of the assessee since under the amended law he was not required to own or hold property in the assessment year (2) Whether income from groves was agricultural income within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act ' 2. The instant reference relates to the assessment year 1364 Fasli of which the previous year is 1363F, while the connected reference relates to the assessment year 1361F., of which the previous year is 1360F. At the outset it is admitted between the parties that the first question does not arise out of the proceedings for the assessment year 1364F., and must be confined to the reference relating to the assessment year 1361F. We, therefore, proceed to examine the question in...
Dehra Dun Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-01-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR139(All)
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. The question requiring our answer in both these cases is the same. We are, therefore, dealing with those cases in a common judgment. 2. In reference No. 198 of 1965, the assessee is the Dehra Dun Tea Company Ltd., Dehra Dun, and in reference No. 199 of 1965, the assessee is the East Hope Town Estate Co. Ltd., Dehra Dun. The Dehra Dun Tea Company Ltd. was assessed to U.P. large land holdings tax on the land holding held by it for the years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. The tax assessed in respect of the first year is Rs. 72,167, in respect of the second year Rs. 74,248, and in respect of the third year Rs. 73,356. 3. The East Hope Town Estate Co. Ltd. was taxed to Rs. 19,346 for the year 1959-60, Rs. 19,498 for the year 1960-61 and Rs. 20,080 for the year 1961-62. 4. Their assessments were not disturbed up to the stage of appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', which while dismissing the second appeal filed by the a...
Ganpat Rai Munna Lal Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-01-1969
Reported in: [1969]24STC87(All)
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. This reference has been made to us at the instance of the assessee, M/s. Ganpat Rai Munna Lal, by the Additional Range. The question referred to us reads :-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the exemption fee was to be paid on the turnover of foodgrains from 22nd August, 1957, or from 24th August, 1957, to 31st March, 1958.2. The facts, as disclosed in the statement of the case, are that the assessee, who is a dealer in foodgrains, made an application on 20th of May, 1957, for exemption. He, however, filed along with the application a chalan showing the deposit of Rs. 500 only whereas the deposit should have been of Rs. 2,000. There was thus a deficiency of Rs. 1,500 in the deposit.3. On 22nd of August, 1957, the assessee deposited a sum of Rs. 1,500 in the State Bank of India at Deoria. He, however, did not file the chalan showing the deposit on that date, that is on 22nd of August, 1957. The chalan was deposited by the assessee on 24th of Au...
Asgar Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-01-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1289
ORDERV.G. Oak, C.J.1. This criminal revision arises out of a prosecution under the Prevention of Pood Adulteration Act. According to the prosecution, Asgar accused was carrying two drums containing adulterated milk. He was stopped by R. D. Sharma, Food Inspector. He purchased samples of milk, which the accused was carrying. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst. It was reported that the sample was deficient in non-fatty solids. The accused was, therefore, prosecuted under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for selling adulterated milk. The accused conceded that he was checked by the Inspector. But it was denied that any money was paid to the accused. The trial Court was satisfied that the accused was selling adulterated milk. He was, therefore, convicted under Section 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000. Aagar's appeal was dismissed by the Temporary Sessions Judge, Bnlandshahr. As...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›