Allahabad Court November 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.
Sushil Chandra and anr. Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All290
Gulatt, J.1. This and the connected Special Appeal arise out of Civil Misc. Writ Nos. 1370 and 3600 of 1970 decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court by a common judgment dated September 30, 1970, both filed by the appellants in these appeals.2. Briefly stated the facts are these. Sometime in the month of February, 1970, the District Excise Officer, Lucknow, took a decision that the excise shop situated in Ganneywali Gali in the city of Lucknow shall continue to be at its old place and that shop along with others was auctioned on February 26, 1970. The appellants were the highest bidders, their bid being for a sum of Rs. 4,28,000/-. The bid was accepted by the District Excise Officer, Luck-now. The appellants complied with the conditions of the auction and on 3lst March, 1970 purchased from the previous licensee all the furnitures and fittings of the shop and also the balance of the country liquor which remained unsold in the shop. Their licence was to start from April 1, 1970 an...
Kunwar Ayurvedic Pharmacy Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All295
Tripathi, J.1. The appellant is a tenant of premises No. 19/27 Patkapur, Kanpur, Respondent No. 4 Smt. Chando Devi is the landlady of the premises. The premises is governed by the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The landlady moved an application tinder Section 3 of the said Act before Rent Control and Eviction Officer for permission to file a suit for the ejectment of the appellant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after hearing the parties refused to grant permission. The respondent landlady filed a revision against that order which was dismissed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad on July 17, 1964. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the respondent challenged its validity by filing a petition under Section 7-F of the Act to the State Government. The State Government allowed the petition by its order dated February 9, 1966 (Annexure K to the writ petition). The appellant thereafter challenged the validity of the aforesa...
Baijnath Vs. Lakshmi NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All398
Dwivedi, J. 1. This appeal comes to us on a reference being made by a learned single Judge. It is an Execution Appeal. 2. The appellant, Baijnath, obtained a decree against the property of the deceased Ram Charan in the hands of the respondents, the judgment-debtors. Thereafter the appellant put the decree in execution by attachment and sale of a holding. The holding was held by Ram Charan as a sirdar under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinbelow called the Act). After his death it was inherited by the judgment-debtors. They later acquired the rights of a bhumidhar in the holding by depositing the requisite amount of money for acquiring the said rights. Presumably the amount was deposited by them from their own pocket, for there is no finding that the amount which they deposited was inherited by them from Ram Charan. 3. The judgment-debtors objected to the attachment and sale of the holding of which they are now bhumidhars. The execution court overruled their ob...
income-tax Officer Vs. Ram Prasad Harish Chandra (by Legal Representat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1970
Reported in: [1971]82ITR397(All)
Dwivedi, J.1. The respondent, Ram Prasad Harish Chandra, was assessed to tax in the status of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1944-45 on an income of Rs. 73,783. Subsequently, two other persons, Dr. B. N. Sarin and Messrs. Mukand Ram Radha Charan, were assessed to income-tax on Rs. 62,442 out of the income of Rs. 73,783 for which the respondent had already been assessed.2. The respondent filed an appeal against the order of the Income-tax Officer. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Then the respondent filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It appears that the Tribunal partly modified the order of the Income-tax Officer.3. When the department was trying to realise the arrears of tax by sale of the respondent's house in 1957, the respondent filed a writ petition in this court on September 26, 1957. The writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent made an application for review of the judgment dismissing the pet...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Asha Handloom
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1970
Reported in: [1972]29STC554(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Agra, has submitted this common statement of the case under Section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act relating to three assessment years, namely, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. In respect of the assessment year 1966-67 there are two references -one under the U.P. Sales.Tax Act and the other under the Central Sales Tax Act-that is why there are four cases relating to three assessment years. The following common question of law has been submitted for the opinion of this court:Whether under the circumstances of the cases the durrets are carpets and can be taxed at 3 per cent, as per Notification No. ST-1367/X-1045(19)-1960, dated 5th April, 1961, or are taxable as unclassified goods taxable at the rate of 2 per cent, during the years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 ?2. The assessee, M/s. Asha Handloom, Sadabad Gate, Hathras, Aligarh, is a dealer in handloom goods includ...
Hasmat Ali Vs. Smt. Suraya Begum
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All260
G.D. Sahgal, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of the District Judge of Bahraich passed on an application made by the respondent under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the returning of the custody of her ward, her minor son, then aged about 4 years.2. The parties to this litigation are Mahomedans, the appellant being the father and the respondent the mother of the minor. There has been a divorce between them. The allegations in the application were that during the period they were in lawful wedlock the minor was born and though there has been a divorce since then he has been living with the mother. A few days prior to the making of the application by the respondent before the District Judge, it was alleged, the minor was taken away on some pretext by the father. It was in these circumstances that the application was made under Section 25 by the mother to the effect that it will be for the welfare of the ward, the minor, to be returned to the custody of his guar...
State of U.P. Vs. B.N. Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All359
Pathak J.1. I agree that the appeal must be dismissed. And in view of the importance of the questions raised, I propose to set out my reasons.2. The facts are already set out in the judgment of my brother Gulati, and I need not repeat them. here.3. The appellant has raised three questions before us.4. The first contention is that the judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 473 of 1960 operates as res judicata and this appeal should also be disposed of on the ground which found favour there. I cannot agree. That case was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court, and the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that any finding in the appeal concludes the questions raised before us. The Supreme Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the points raised in the appeal and cannot be taken, therefore, to have approved of what was decided by this Court. Indeed while allowing the appeal to be withdrawn it expressly gr...
The Union of India (Uoi) Through the General Manager, Central Railway, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All531
Misra, J. 1. The present appeal by the Union of India is directed against the judgment and decree of the First Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, dated 9th November, 1956. 2. Messrs. Bruel & Company of Bombay is a cotton merchant and commission agent On 2nd May, 1951 they booked two consignments of 100 bales each of fully pressed cotton at Raichur Station for being carried and delivered to Laxmi Rattan Cotton Mills Company Limited at Kanpur. They also got the two consignments insured with Neptune Assurance Company Limited of Bombay for Rs. 52,000/- and Rs. 51,000 respectively for the period from 2nd May, 1951 till the unloading of the bales at the destination station. Raichur Station fell on the G.I.P. Railway (now the Central Railway) as it was prior to the division of the Indian Railways into new zones. Two Railway Receipts bearing Nos. A-7263/96 and A-7263/97, dated 2nd May, 1951 were issued in respect of the two consignments mentioning Laxmi Rattan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. as the consign...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Chandra Oil Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1970
Reported in: [1971]28STC481(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow, the Additional Revising Authority, Sales Tax, Allahabad, has submitted this statement of the case under Section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act with the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:Whether inter-State sales will form part of the gross turnover 2. The assessee is a dealer in oil, oil-cakes and tins. In the assessment year 1961-62, he returned a gross turnover of Rs. 53,794.57. He was assessed to sales tax for a sum of Rs. 2,352.18. The assessee appealed and his appeal was dismissed on the ground that he had failed to deposit the admitted tax. On revision, the revising authority found that the gross turnover of the assessee included inter-State sales and if such inter-State sales were excluded, the figure of gross turnover would be less than Rs. 12,000, which is the minimum turnover exempt from tax. Accordingly, he held that the assessee was not liable to pay tax at all on his admitt...
Sri Krishna Chandra Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1970
Reported in: [1972]29STC635(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 11(1) of the U.P, Sales Tax Act.2. The assessee did not file any return for the assessment year 1957-58. An action was taken against him under Section 21 of the Act. A notice was issued by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer under Section 21 which was served by affixation on the dealer on 17th February, 1962. Thereafter the Sales Tax Officer formed the opinion that the Assistant Sales Tax Officer was not competent to issue the notice. He accordingly vacated the earlier notice and issued a fresh one on 30th March, 1962. Subsequently, on 29th March, 1963, an order of assessment was passed under Section 21 of the Act. The assessee appealed and contended before the appellate authority that the service of the notice by affixation on 30th March, 1962, was not valid-, because service by affixation was permissible after all other modes of service had been exhausted. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) did not accept this contention, but remand...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »