Allahabad Court February 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.
Laxmi NaraIn and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ615
D.D. Seth, J.1. This reference has been made by the learned Additional District Magistrate (J.) Etawah. The facts of the case are that Sri Maharaj Singh, Marketing Inspector at Auraiya, district Etawah, was informed in the afternoon of 19th December 1966 that the two applicants had sold 25 kntls. and 45 kgs. of pea on 17th December 1966 to M/s. Shyam Lal, Sri Govind, which was a food grain licensee at Auraiya. The Marketing Inspector was further informed that the applicants did not possess a license for dealing in food grains. The applicants are the partners of the firm known as Laxmi Narain Ram Narain. Against both the applicants charges were framed by the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Etawah, on 22nd April 1967 on the statement of Maharaj Singh, Marketing Inspector, Auraiya. The learned Magistrate framed the charges against the applicants for having contravened Clause 3 of the U. P. Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order 1964 and thus were punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Com...
Satya NaraIn Lal Vs. Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway and a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1969
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ381All
Gyanendra Kumar, J.1. This revision has been referred to a Division Bench toy the order of Verma, J., dated 4 November 1968, on account of difference of opinion between two single Judge decisions of this Court, which will be adverted to later on.2. The facts giving rise to the revision are that in 1969, the applicant, Satya Narain Lal, was working as assistant station-master, West Cabin Chheoki, on the Northern Railway. On 2 August 1959, a train collision took place at West Cabin Chekki, with the result that the applicant was suspended that very day (2 August 1959) and, after enquiry, was removed from service on 22 April 1961. His departmental appeal was dismissed on 3 February 1962, whereafter he filed Suit No. 36 of 1962 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Allahabad, for a declaration that his dismissal was illegal and that he continued to be in service By his judgment and decree dated 7 November 1963, the Civil Judge decreed the suit in these terms:The suit is decreed and it is hereby ...
Har NaraIn Purshottam Dass Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1969
Reported in: [1971]28STC77(All)
Pathak, J. 1. The assessee deals in colours and chemicals purchased from Uttar Pradesh and ex-Uttar Pradesh markets. It also sells imported Tinopal. In assessment proceedings under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 the Sales Tax Officer treated Tinopal as a chemical and accordingly taxed the turnover of Tinopal at the rate of one anna per rupee. The assessee appealed against the assessment orders and contended that Tinopal was not a chemical and was liable to tax at the rate of three pies per rupee. The plea was accepted by the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax and the appeals were allowed. The Commissioner of Sales Tax applied to the revising authority for the revision of the appellate orders, and the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax set aside the appellate orders and restored the assessment orders. At the instance of the assessee this and the connected reference have been made on the following question :Whether Tinopal is a chemical liable to tax at on...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Noorullah Ghazanffurullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1969
Reported in: [1970]26STC100(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, the Additional Revising Authority, Sales Tax, Varanasi Range, Varanasi, has submitted this reference Under Section 11 (3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the opinion of this court on the following question of law :Whether upon the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disputed item was a pure works contract and, therefore, non-taxable ; or whether it amounted to supply and sale of railway coaches by the assessee to the railway authorities and, therefore, taxable 2. The assessee, M/s. Noorullah Ghazanffurullah is a firm of contractors which carries on business at Allahabad. In the assessment year 1958-59, the assessee executed a contract of building railway coaches for the North Eastern Railway on the underframes supplied by the railway. The coaches were to be built according to the specifications and drawings annexed to the agreement on a siding within the railway yard for which the assessee had ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›