Allahabad Court April 1969 Judgments
Bishwanath Lohia Vs. the Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1969
Reported in: [1970]26STC84(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner is a partner of the firm M/s. Jeet Mal Ram Gopal which carries on business as commission agents and dealers in ghee. The firm was assessed by the Sales Tax Officer on 28th November, 1967, to sales tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and a notice of demand requiring the payment of Rs. 33,256.62 as sales tax was issued. The amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioner and a warrant of arrest has been issued.2. By this petition the petitioner prays for mandamus directing the respondents not to execute the warrant of arrest against the petitioner.3. The contention of the petitioner is that he is not liable to arrest in proceedings for recovery of tax assessed on the firm. That contention is founded on the circumstance that no notice of demand has been addressed to the petitioner. It is urged that there is no obligation on the petitioner to pay the tax assessed on the firm without such notice of demand and unless such notice is issued to the petitioner,...
Tag this Judgment!Bikarma Singh and ors. Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All344
S.D. Khare, J. 1. This reference to a Full Bench arises out of a Special Appeal filed against an order of a learned single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition. The Division Bench, which heard the Special Appeal, was of the opinion that the case of Tribeni v. State of U. P., 1968 All LJ 570 affirming the view taken in Lakhpat Singh v. Dal Singh, 1964 All LJ 1049 required reconsideration. It has, therefore, referred the following question for the consideration of this Full Bench:--'Whether the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge was a nullity when a notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of the land in dispute in the appeal before him was made during the pendency of the appeal and that fact had been brought to his notice.'2. Considering all the facts of the present case we would slightly modify the point for reference by adding one more clause (underlined (here in ') towards the end so that it will read as fo...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ram (Through Suti Mills Mazdoor Sabha) and ors. Vs. First Labour C ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1969
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ392All
W. Broome, J.1. The point that arises for decision in this writ petition, which has been referred to us at the instance of a learned stogie Judge is whether a labour court can dismiss an application under Section 6F of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act on the ground of its not having been presented within a reasonable time.2. The petition is directed against an order of the first labour court, Kanpur, dated 29 September 1963, dismissing an application of a workman named Sri Ram under Section 6F challenging his dismissal with effect from 8 June 1961 by his employer (the Muir Mills Company, Ltd., Kanpur). The petitioner's contention is that the employer had contravened the provisions of Section 6E (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, because it had not applies for permission to dismiss him, despite the fact that a number of industrial disputes were already pending between the concern and its workmen, in which the petitioner was directly interested. At first the State...
Tag this Judgment!State of Uttar Pradesh and anr. Vs. Virendra Nath Srivastava and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1969
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ620All
Gyanendra Kumar, J.1. Both these appeals have been filed by the State or Uttar Pradesh and the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Uttar Pradesh. By his orders dated 7 and 20 August 1968, G.C.Mathur, J., allowed the writ petitions filed by Virendra Nath Srivastava and Chaudhri Anis Ahmed, respondents, respectively, giving rise to these appeals which involve common questions of fact and law and can be disposed of by a single Judgment. Respondent Virendra Nath Srivastava was a confirmed Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. In this department there are 23 permanent posts of Superintending Engineers and 35 posts of officiating Superintending Engineers. In 1960, Virendra Nath was selected by a committee set up by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for the post of an officiating Superintending Engineer and in November 1964, he was actually appointed as officiating Superintending Engineer. On the other hand, Chaudhri Anis Ahmed was a confirmed As...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Vs. Giri Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All404
Broome, J. 1. This second appeal has been referred to us at the instance of a learned Single Judge, who felt that an authoritative decision was called for as to the combined effect of Sections 15, 45 and 51 of the Easements Act2. The suit out of which this appeal arises is for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the discharge of rain-water through certain spouts (parnalas) that open from the plaintiff's roof on to their land. From the findings of fact given by the Courts below it appears that when the plaintiff purchased the house in 1965, it was a mere ruin, having collapsed 5 or 6 years before; but previously, when the house was standing, the plaintiffs predecessors had been discharging rain-water on to the defendants' land from the roof of the house through parnalas for more than 20 years. The learned Munsif of Muzaffarnagar held that they had thus acauired a prescriptive easementary right and on this finding decreed the suit. But in appeal the le...
Tag this Judgment!Gupta (R.K.L.) Vs. Ram Babu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1969
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ390All
Gangeshwar Prasad, J.1. This is an appeal by the State Government against the order passed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, by which he set aside the conviction of the respondents under Para. 76 (c) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, read with Section 14(2) of the Employees' Provident Panda Act, 1952, and acquitted them.2. The material facts of the case are not In dispute. Bijli Cotton Mills, Hathras is a factory covered by Section 1(3)(a) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the scheme), are applicable to it. Respondent 1 is the managing director of the factory, respondent 2 is its attorney and occupier and respondent 3 is the factory manager. They did not submit to the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner. Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur, monthly consolidated returns in form 12 for the months of March, April and May 1964 as...
Tag this Judgment!Government of India and anr. Vs. Smt. Sahodra Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All357
Pathak, J. 1. On April 30, 1958 therespondents purchased from Messrs. Dost Mohammad Private Limited the property described as No. 45 Tagore Road situated in the Cantonment at Kanpur. It comprises of a bungalow and land. The building site on which the bungalow stands, is referred to as survey No. 100. Admittedly, the lease or written grant under which survey No. 100 was given is not traceable. But it is recorded in the General Land Register as 'occupancy land on old grant terms'.2. On May 19, 1958 the respondents applied to the Cantonment Authorities formutation of their names, but before the request was granted the respondents were required to admit that the land comprised in the property belonged to the Government. On September 13, 1961 the property was mutated in the names of the respondents and on September 15, 1961 the respondents executed a deed admitting that the site appurtenant to the property and forming its compound belonged to the Government of India and was held by them sub...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. G. Gordon Vs. Administrator General, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All224
Asthana, J. 1. A Division Bench of the Court while hearing a Special Appeal from an order of a learned single Judge granting Letters of Administration to the Administrator General, in respect of the assets of one Alexender John, doubted the correctness of the decision in the case of Mt. Ram Kali v. Administrator General of U. P., : AIR1943All356 and referred the following question to a Full Bench.'Whether the High Court can grant Letters of Administration to the Administrator General under the Administrator General's Act, 1913 where the deceased was an Indian Christian (and not an Anglo Indian)?'2. The Administrator General's Act 1913 (Act No. 3 of 1913) (hereinafter called the Act) is a consolidating Act relating to the office and duties of the Administrator General. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act defines 'exempted person' as an Indian Christian, a Hindu, Mohammedan, Parsi or Buddhist or a person exempted under Section 332 of the Indian Succession Act. 1865, from the operatio...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram Jagannath Vs. the District Magistrate, Meerut and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All396
ORDERSatish Chandra, J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership firm. It carries on the business ofpurchase and sale of foodgrains under licences granted to it under the U. P. Foodgrains Dealers licensing Order, 964. In the evening of 12th August, 19S7, the Senior Marketing Inspector, Hapur, raid-ed the petitioner's business premises and seized a truck-load of Matar Dal (100 bags), on the belief that this commodity was being transferred to M/s. Prayag Das Ved Prakash of Ghaziabad. On 25th August, 1967, the Collector, Meerut, issued a notice requiring the petitioner to show cause why the seized goods be not confiscated under Section 6-A, Essential Commodities Act, for contravention of conditions 9 and 9-A of the aforesaid Licensing Order. The petitioner filed a representation, and contended that the goods were not being transferred as a result of any sale to any other wholesaler. So, there was no contravention of the provisions of conditions 9 or 9-A. The District Magistrate did not accept t...
Tag this Judgment!Behari Lal and anr. Vs. Keshri Nandan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All201
Oak, C.J. 1. These are two execution First appeals. Initially, they came up on 11-2-1969 for admission before a Division Bench of this Court It was noticed that in each case valuation of the appeal and valuation of the suit in which the appeal arose was below Rs. 20,000. By Act No. 35 of 1968, which came into force on 2-12-1968, appellate jurisdiction of District Judges has been raised to Rs. 20,000. The question, therefore, arose whether these appeals lie to the High Court or to the District Court. It was urged for the appellants that, in spite of the passing of Act No. 35 of 1968, these appeals lie to the High Court. In support of this contention, two reasons were advanced on behalf of the appellants. Firstly, it was argued that Act No. 35 of 1968 is unconstitutional. Secondly, even if it is assumed that the Act is constitutional, the present appeals are not governed by Act No. 35 of 1968. These questions are of great importance. The two appeals were, therefore, referred to a Full Be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »