Allahabad Court July 1969 Judgments
Gur Bux Rai Har Bux Rai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR350(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, read with Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act (hereafter referred to as ' the Act '). The assessee is a firm ' Gur Bux Rai Har Bux Rai'. The firm had two partners, Gur Bux Rai and Har Bux Rai, who owned equal shares. The chargeable accounting periods ended on June 21, 1944, July 10, 1945, and March 31, 1946. Up to July 14, 1942, the assessee-firm carried on business with head office at Kanpur and a branch at Farrukhabad. The Farrukhabad branch worked under the style ' Pussulal Jangalal', There was partial partition in the family of one partner, Gur Bux Rai, on July 14, 1942. The result of this partial partition was this. Whereas formerly Gur Bux Rai represented his joint Hindu family in the business, after July 14, 1942, Gur Bux Rai was a partner in the Kanpur business in his individual capacity. As regards the branch business at Farrukhabad, his wife, Chameli Devi, and minor son, Gopal Da...
Tag this Judgment!Rahim Bux and ors. Vs. Mohammad Shafi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1969
Reported in: AIR1971All16
Jagmohan Lal, J.1. This second appeal filed by the defendants is directed against a judgment and decree dated 5-1-1962 passed by the lower appellate court under which the claim of the plaintiff in respect of a shop situate in the town of Lucknow for possession and injunction has been decreed though the same had been dismissed by the trial court.2. The facts of the case as found by the courts below are that the plaintiff-respondent is a tenant of a shop which was a part of a big building owned by the defendants-appellants 1 to 3. This entire building including the shop in dispute was demolished by the landlords on 4-4-1958 in pursuance of a notice issued to them by the Municipal Board. Lucknow under Section 265(1) of the U. P. Municipalities Act The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for injunction on 17-4-1958 restraining the landlords from interfering with his possession over the said premises, offering at the same time to pay rent for these premises even in the condition in which they...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1544
B.N. Lokur, J.1. Appellant Radhey and two others, Parsa and Ham Prasad, were tried together for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 328 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Parsa and Ram Prasad were acquitted but appellant Radhey was convicted of offences under Section 304. Part 2, read with Section 84 and Section 323 read with Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo six years' rigorous imprisonment on the first count and three month's rigorous imprisonment on the second count, both the sentences to run concurrently.2. The case against the three accused was that they attacked Nazir on the Chabutra of his house at about sunset time on the 4th July, 1966, when he was sitting there in the company of Rafiq, Budhu, Babu (P. W. 8), Aziz (P. W. 2), Chhotey and Jumma (P. W. 1). Radhey's mother Kalawati was of loose character and was hence ex-communicated from the caste, whereupon Radhey drove her out of his house about eight days before th...
Tag this Judgment!The Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Lakshmi Ratan Cot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All452; [1969]39CompCas23(All)
ORDERM.H. Beg, J.1. This is a petition under Section 433 of the Indian Companies Act, I of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), filed by the Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), for winding up the Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) in the circumstances detailed below.2. The Company is one of the Industrial and business concerns controlled by the Guptas of Kanpur. The Corporation is controlled by another prominent group of industrial magnates of Kanpur, the Singhanias. It appears that the Gupta and the Singhania groups were at one time jointly running the company as well AS the Corporation. They were also jointly controlling a firm known as Firm Behari Lal Ram Chand (referred to hereinafter as the firm) so much so that the accounts of these three concerns were mixed and open to each other as though the three concerns were one. But, subsequently, as a result of differences between the two groups...
Tag this Judgment!Bahori Lal Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All414
Kirty, J. 1. The three above-mentioned cases have come up before this Bench as a result of two separate orders dated 4th November, 1968, passed by a Division Bench, and 28-10-1968, passed by a learned Single Judge. By order dated 4-11-1968 in Writ No. 4994 of 1964 connected with Writ No. 1951 of 1964, Jagdish Sahai and Gangeshwar Prasad, JJ., referred the following question to a Full Bench:-- 'Whether the description of the land sought to be acquired as given in the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued in these cases sufficiently complied with the requirement of law?' By the order dated 28-10-1968 G. C. Mathur, J., referred the following questions for decision by a Full Bench:-- 'No. 1:-- Whether the description of the land sought to be acquired without giving the numbers of the plots but by referring to a map which may be inspected in the office of the Collector meets the requirements of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act of giving particul...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotey Lal Bishwanath Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1969
Reported in: [1970]26STC237(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This and the connected references under the U.P. Sales Tax Act have been submitted by the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow, at the instance of M/s. Chhotey Lal Bishwanath of Barabanki for the opinion of this court on the following two common questions of law :(1) Whether under the circumstances of the case remand of these four cases was justified being in conformity with law ?(2) Whether after remand when the entire case had been reopened, could such a direction be given to the assessing officer to entertain this additional ground at the time of re-scrutiny ?2. The assessee is a dealer in food-grains, oil-seeds and gur. The assess ment years involved are 1959-60 and 1960-61. For the two assessment years in question, the assessee claimed that besides carrying on business on his own behalf he had also acted as a purchasing agent and in that capacity had supplied goods worth Rs. 1,14,229.60 to the U.P. principals and goods worth Rs. 5,21,313.73 to the ex-U.P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Chawla Bank Ltd. Vs. Reserve Bank of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1969
Reported in: [1970]40CompCas15(All)
W. Broome, J. 1. The Chawla Bank Ltd. of Dehra Dun has filed this writ petition to challenge an order of moratorium issued by the Central Government under Sub-section (2) of Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and an amalgamation scheme prepared by the Reserve Bank under Sub-section (4) of the same section for the amalgamation of the Chawla Bank with the New Bank of India. 2. The sole ground on which the moratorium order and the amalgamation scheme are challenged is that they are in conflict with an order passed by the High Court on January 17, 1949, under Section 153 of the Indian Companies Act, sanctioning an arrangement agreed to by the shareholders andcreditors of the Chawla Bank for the continuance of the said bank and for the satisfaction of its liabilities. The suggestion is that Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act cannot operate to nullify orders that have been passed by the High Court in the jurisdiction conferred on it by the Companies Act. I see no force in ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Shankar Lal Chandra Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1969
Reported in: [1970]26STC386(All)
Jagdish Sahai, AG. C.J.1. These two references have been made by the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Lucknow, on 30th of November, 1966.2. The dealer-assessee in both the cases is M/s. Shankar Lal Chandra Prakash. Reference No. 281 of 1967 relates to the assessment proceedings for the year 1959-60 while reference No. 285 of 1967 relates to the assessment proceedings held in the year 1960-61. The question referred in both these references is in identical terms which reads :-Whether under the circumstances enumerated above the turnover of oil-seeds was taxable or not in view of Section 3-AA, read with Rule 12-A, of the U.P. Sales Tax Act 3. The dealer-assessee effected sale of oil-seeds to a mill. The mill issued Form III-A to the dealer-assessee to the effect that the purchases are for resale in the same condition. The dealer-assessee did not realise any sales tax from the mills.4. Taking the view that inasmuch as the sale was made to the mills, it must be held that it was made for consump...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›