Allahabad Court May 1969 Judgments
R.R. Engineering Co. Vs. Zila Parishad, Bareilly and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All316
Pathak, J. 1. The District Board, Bareilly, by resolution No. 3 dated February 18, 1928, imposed circumstance and property tax in exercise of the powers Conferred by Section 108 of the District Boards Act, 1922. By Notification No. 2049/ II/IX-342-11930 dated November 29, 1933 made by the State Government under Section 114 (d) of the Act, it was provided:'The total amount of the tax on circumstances and property imposed by a District Board on any single assessee shall not, in any year, exceed the sum of Rs. 2,000.'The tax continued to be levied for many years.2. On April 20, 1958 the U.P. Antarim Zila Parishad Ordinance 1958 was enacted providing for the establishment of Antarim Zila Parishads for the interim administration of local self-Government in rural areas facilitating the establishment of Zila Parishads for the co-ordinated administration of affairs concerning economic and social planning and local Seif Government in the districts in Uttar Pradesh, The Ordinance was replaced by...
Tag this Judgment!Jawahar Lal Rastogi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1969
Reported in: [1970]78ITR491(All)
V.G.O. Oak, C.J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against a search and seizure carried out under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'). Jawahar Lal Rastogi is the petitioner. His father, Inder Prasad, carried on money-lending business with headquarters at Lucknow. Inder Prasad died in the year 1953. The petitioner became the karta of the Hindu undivided family. The petitioner continued his father's money-lending business. The petitioner is also a partner in a number of industrial concerns. The firms, Rohtas Financiers and Rohtas Pharmaceutical Distributors, have their head offices at Hazratganj, Lucknow, while Messrs. J. E. N. Engineering Corporation has its factory and office at Aishbagh, Lucknow. On September 14, 1964, the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Lucknow, directed the petitioner to furnish certain statements. The petitioner was required to furnish the necessary information within 10 days. On September 21, 19...
Tag this Judgment!DIn Dayal Kesho Lal Vs. the Sales Tax Officer Ii and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1969
Reported in: [1970]25STC221(All)
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. The petitioner, M/s. Din Dayal Kesho Lal (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), has approached this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for the issue of 'a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the assessment order dated 1st August, 1962 (annexure III).'2. The assessment order dated 1st August, 1962, has been made under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioner.3. Admittedly the petitioner was granted an exemption certificate under Rule 19 of the rules framed under the Act in respect of foodgrains. The Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., cancelled the exemption certificate on 23rd of March, 1962. His order reads :-Whereas I am satisfied that M/s. Din Dayal Kesho Lal for the year 1957-58 have contravened the provisions of Rules 20B(a), 20B(c) and 20B(i) Chapter V, of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948, I, P.N. Zutshi, Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax...
Tag this Judgment!Gupta Homeo Medical Stores Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1969
Reported in: [1969]24STC415(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a statement of the case submitted by the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow, under Section 11 (4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The assessee carries on business in medicines and one of the items in which the assessee deals is tincture zingiberis, which hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'tincture'. During the assessment year 1956-57 the assessee appears to have claimed before the Sales Tax Officer that the turnover of tincture was not assessable in its hands because the assessee was neither a manufacturer nor an importer. There is no discussion on this point in the assessment order, but it appears that the Sales Tax Officer did not accept the assessee's claim and included in the taxable turnover of the assessee a sum of Rs. 40,000 as the turnover of spirit, tincture zingiberis manufactured by it. The assessment order was confirmed on appeal by the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax. The assessee then filed a revision a...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Noor Jahan Begum Vs. Muftkhar Dad Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All170
Pathak J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court affirming the dismissal of a suit by the trial Court.2. Rafi Ullah Khan had a son, Rafi-ul-Qadar. Rafi-ul-Qadar had two wives, of whom the appellant, Noor Jehan Begum, is one. The first respondent, Muftkhar Dad Khan, is a son by the other wife.3. According to the appellant, on September 5, 1916 Rafi Ullah Khan executed a gift deed in favour of the appellant transferring a grove comprised in three plots with a total area of 16.23 acres situated in Mauja Ahmadpur Niazpur, pergana and tehsil Shahjahanpur, district Shahjahanpur. It is alleged that Rafi Ullah Khan put her in proprietary possession of the grove. Admittedly, no mutation proceedings were taken at the time. In September 1942, Rafi Ullah Khan caused a mutation application to be filed by the appellant and conveyed his written consent to the mutation. Before the mutation proceedings could conclude Rafi Ullah Khan die...
Tag this Judgment!Asharfi Lal Vs. Firm Thakur Pd. Kishori Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All197
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. On a reference made by our brothers Broome and G.S. Lal, JJ. this appeal under Section 6-A of the Court-fees Act (U.P. Amendment) has been laid before us. 2. The respondent firm Thakur Prasad Kishqri Lal brought the suit giving rise to this appeal for accounting and for the recovery of the sum found due after accounting to the plaintiff respondent from the defendant appellant Asharfi Lal. In the plaint the suit was valued at Rs. 300, Paragraph 10 of the plaint, which deals with the valuation of the suit reads: 'Yeh ki tayun maliyat dawa bagarz akhtiyar samayat wa adaya court-fees mublig 300 rupaiye kayam kiya jata hai. Baad kitab jis kadar rakam yaftani mudiyaan jimmgi mudalaham ayad ho us per mudaiyyan rasum sarkari ada karenge.' 3. The relief claimed in the plaint reads thus: '(a) Basadur digri infsakh sarakhat darmiyan farikain saakatdari fiks kar di lawe aur mudalaham ko hukum di jawe ki hisab kitab sam.iha de aur hisab kitab darmiyan farikain kara diya jawe au...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1969
Reported in: AIR1971All285
ORDERH.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. In this petition, the main relief claimed is 'that a writ of certiorari/ mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction be issued setting aside the orders of the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer registering the settlement between respondents Nos. 3 and 4, and refusing petitioners 1 and 2 to represent the workmen in the conciliation proceedings.'2. This petition was admitted on 20th August, 1964, and an ex parte order was passed directing that 'until further order the operation of the settlement dated August 5, 1964, is suspended.'3. On 4th December, 1964, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid order dated August 20, 1964, was vacated.4. Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, having its principal office at 112-A, Medows Street, Fort, Bombay, and the petitioner No. 1, Jagdish Prasad, is the Secretary of the Sabha at Ghaziabad Centre. Under its constitution, the Union enrolls...
Tag this Judgment!Swami Prasad Pradhan Vs. Hargovind Sahai Mathur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All251
Lokur, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is referred to a Full Bench at the instance of Kirty, J. on the ground that there is a conflict in decisions of Division Benches of this Court and the legal position is anomalous.2. The petitioner Swami Prasad was elected Pradhan of the Bilrai Gaon Sabha in 1960 but was placed under suspension by an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahoba dated 17th October, 1967. The petitioner Swami Prasad has challenged the order of suspension as invalid on several grounds. The order of suspension reads as follows:'Under Collector's order dated 29-9-67 Sri Swami Prasad, Pradhan Gaon Sabha Bilrai is placed under suspension with immediate effect. Tahsildar Mahoba will please get his charge transferred to Uppradhan in consultation with B. D. O. Kabrai He has been suspended for giving leases illegally to the persons. Charge-sheet will be followed later on.'There is no doubt that the petitioner Swami Prasad has been suspended pending a d...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Sita Ram Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1969
Reported in: [1970]25STC218(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The assessee deals in foodgrains. In assessment proceedings under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1959-60 he disclosed a gross turnover of Rs. 21,047-9-6 and claimed that he was not taxable. He relied upon Notification No. ST-1025/X-1097(i)/58 dated 1st April, 1959, which declares that with effect from 1st April, 1959, no tax will be payable by the dealer on the turnover of foodgrains where such turnover does not exceed Rs. 25,000 during the assessment year. He admitted that he had sold foodgrains worth Rs. 32,756-6-6 through commission agents but claimed that the sale proceeds could not be included in his turnover. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the contention and held him liable to tax on the ground that by including the sale proceeds of Rs. 32,756-6-6 the gross turnover of the assessee exceeded the limit of Rs. 25,000. The assessee preferred an appeal, and the appeal was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax who, following a deci...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Smt. Shanti Misra and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All408
ORDERLakshmi Prasad, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The facts of the case leading to this petition may briefly be summarised as below. Amar Nath Misra husband of opposite party Ho. 1 and father of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 met with an accident on 11th September, 1966 at about 8.30 P.M. on Unnao-Kanpur Road while he was on a scooter. One Kartar Singh was also seated on the scooter. He escaped with injuries but Amar Nath Misra died as a result of the injuries soon after. The accident occurred as a truck collided with his scooter. A report of the occurrence was lodged by one Ram Gopal same day at 9.05 p.m. at Gangaghat police station. It was stated in the report that the number of the truck could not be noted and it was not known who drove the truck and who was the owner thereof. By a Notification published in the U.P. Gazette dated 18th March, 1967 the State Government constituted a Tribunal (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) under Sub-section (1) of S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »