Allahabad Court October 1970 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.
Smt. Maina Devi Khemka Vs. State of U.P., Revenue Dept. Lucknow Throug ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All241
Pathak, J. 1. I agree with my brother Gulati J. that the writ petition should be dismissed with costs. But I would prefer to base that decision on the circumstance that the petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands and is, therefore, not entitled to equity. The circumstances surrounding the case have already been set out by my learned brother, and I agree with him that they show that the parties acted in collusion with one another. That inference seems to me to be a reasonable one having regard to their conduct from the very beginning. The petitioner has prayed for an order in the nature of certiorari. It is settled law that certiorari lies in the discretion of the Court and issues ex debito justitiae. The party applying must not be guilty of conduct disentitling him to relief. On this consideration alone, I would refuse relief to the petitioner.2. In the circumstances I do not consider it necessary to express any opinion on the question whether the Assistant Collector had powe...
Kanal Chandra Ganguli Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1970
Reported in: (1971)IILLJ25All
1. In this case, the petitioner has obtained a rule from this Court calling upon the respondent to show cause why the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2), Dhanbad, a copy of which is annexure '4' to the application, be not called up and quashed by issue of an appropriate writ. Cause has been shown before us by Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh, appearing on behalf of the employers who are respondent No. 2.2. It appears that the petitioner was employed as a typist in the Office of the Assistant Chief Mining Engineer of the Jamadoba Collieries of Messrs. Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. On account of some incident which is said to have taken place on the 21st December, 1965, a proceeding was taken against the petitioner which ended with an order of his dismissal which was passed on the 17th January, 1966. Thereafter, an industrial dispute was raised in that context by the Tata Collieries Workers' Union, of which the Secretary is respondent No. 3 in this Court. Ultimately, a...
Pt. Ram Avtar Sharma and ors. Vs. Pt. Chakradhar Saran Sharma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All157
Parekh, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the decree and judgment dated September, 12, 1961, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing application under Section 46. Trade Marks Act, 1940. 2. The petitioners-appellants filed application under Section 46 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, and prayed that the two entries of registration of Trade Mark under Registration Nos. 93543 and 108250 favouring respondents be expunged. Entry No. 93543 is a label bearing the picture of Gadadhar Prasad (father of respondents Nos. 1 and 2) and the words 'Himkalyan Tail' (in Deonagri script) and the words 'Him Kalyan' in English. Entry No. 108250 is an associated trade mark of the former and relates to registration of the word 'Himkalayan' per se. These entries in the register of Trade Marks will henceforth be referred by us as TM 1 and TM 2. 3. The case of the appellant was that the registration of trade marks of TM 1 and TM 2 was obtained by Gadadhar Prasad by practising fraud on the Registra...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Devi Das Ganpat Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1970
Reported in: [1971]28STC544(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Agra, has submitted this statement of the case under Section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the opinion of this Court on the following question of law:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it was legal and proper for the Additional Judge (Revisions) to set aside the assessment order and appellate order against which the dealer had not filed any revision 2. The assessee who is a dealer in foodgrains and oil-seeds was assessed under the U. P. Sales Tax Act for the year 1959-60 by an ex parte order dated 26th November, 1962. The assessee moved an application under Section 30 of the Act for setting aside the assessment order and making a fresh assessment on the ground that he could not attend on the appointed date because of his illness. The application was, however, rejected initially on the ground that the assessee had not paid the admitted tax. The m...
Indian Ceramic House, Agra Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Ii Sector, Agra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All251; [1971]28STC231(All)
Mathur, J. 1. In these Writ Petitions the following question has been referred to us for decision in view of the conflict in two decisions of this Court, namely, Adarsh Bhandar v. Sales Tax Officer. Aligarh : AIR1957All475 and Steel Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1969 All LJ 399.'Whether in view of the various sub-rules of Rule 41, U. P. Sales Tax Rules, a dealer is entitled to deposit the tax admitted by him to be due and whether the assessing authority is entitled to make an enquiry whether the position assumed by the dealer as to his liability was justified in law, while making the provisional assessment?' : AIR1957All475 (Supra) is a Full Bench decision, wherein Mootham. C. J. observed as below:--'Under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 41 the Sales Tax Officer is empowered to make an assessment to the best of his judgment when no return is submitted or when a return is submitted but is not accompanied by a treasury chalan in proof of the deposit in the treasury of the amoun...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Ram Saran Jagannath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1970
Reported in: [1973]30STC272(All)
R.S. Pathak, J. 1. The Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, has referred the following question :Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to exemption from the payment of sales tax under Notification No. ST-4485/X dated 14th December, 1957, on his sales of imported mill-made cloth for the period from 14th December, 1957, to 31st March, 1958, when he failed to furnish proof to the satisfaction of the assessing authority that the additional excise duty had been paid on the said cloth ?2. The respondent, M/s. Ram Saran Jagannath, deals in mill-made cloth. He was assessed to tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the year 1957-58. An appeal by the respondent was dismissed. He applied in revision. His principal submission during the hearing of the revision application was that the turnover of mill-made cloth was exempt from tax for the period 14th December, 1957, to 31st March, 1958, by reason of Notification No. 4485/X dated 14th December, 1957. The A...
Kashi Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1970
Reported in: [1971]82ITR401(All)
V.K. Oak, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Kashi Ram has been assessed as an individual. The assessment year is 1960-61. The assessee is a partner in registered firm, Messrs. Jamuna Das Kashi Ram. His share in the firm is 8 annas. At the time of assessment of Kashi Ram the Income-tax Officer noticed deposits amounting to Rs. 8,500. It was further noticed that the assessee had withdrawn from the accounts of the firm a small sum of Rs. 500. The assessee was invited to explain the source of deposit of Rs. 8,500. The assessee state d that that money came from dowry and sale of ornaments. The Income-tax Officer concluded that the explanation given by the assessee was not correct. Adding a sum of Rs. 2,000 to the deposit of Rs. 8,500 the Income-tax Officer inferred that a total sum of Rs. 10,500 represented the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. The same officer assessed the firm also. The firm declared a loss during the accounting peri...
Motilal and ors. Vs. Preventive Intelligence Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR418(All)
Pathak, J. 1. The petitioners apply for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order under Section 132(3), Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The petitioners, who are brothers, carry on business as brokers in silver under the name Messrs. Moti Lal Panna Lal. On June 5, 1969, the Preventive Intelligence Officer and other officers of the Customs and Central Excise Department searched the residential and business premises of the petitioners and carried away some silver bars, pieces of silver and currency notes. It appears that the customs officers also arrested the petitioners, but subsequently, upon a habeas corpus application, this court directed their release by its order dated June 25, 1969.3. On July 24, 1969, the petitioners applied to the customs authorities for return of the silver but despite repeated requests in that behalf the silver was not returned to them. On September 4, 1969, the petitioners filed a petition (Writ Petition No. 3073 of 1969) under Article 226 of the C...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›