Allahabad Court December 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.
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. the District Registrar, Meerut and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All390
ORDERC.D. Parekh, J. 1. These are four writ petitions. Writ petitions Nos. 2605 and 2606 of 1967 have been filed with the prayer for quashing the order passed by the District Registrar of Meerut dated 16-11-1966. 2. In writ petition No. 2605 on the application of the Modi Spinning and Weaving Company Limited, purported to have been moved under Rule 220 of the Registration Manual, the District Registrar Meerut held that certain notifications issued by the State Government under Section 78 of Act No. 16 of 1908 as ultra vires and inoperative. He has directed that the Sub-Registrar Ghaziabad was only entitled to realise the copying charges from Modi Spinning and Weaving Company Limited and not the amount of Rs. 50,011/- (as demanded by the Sub-Registrar) for the Registration of the mortgage deed presented by the Company for registration. He further directed that after deducting a sum of Rs. 100/- the balance of the amount that is Rs. 49,911/- be refunded to the Company. 3. In Writ Petitio...
The Khurshed Bagh Co-operative Housing Society, Ltd., Lucknow Vs. Smt. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All426
Tripathi, J. 1.The appellant is a Co-operative Housing Society registered under the U. P. Co-operative Societies ActNo. II of 1912. A small piece of land measuring about 19 biswas and 6 biswansi is being acquired by the State Government for the Society on the Lucknow-Kanpur road at a distance of four miles from the Charbagh railway station. The Society has already executed an agreement in favour of the State Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 39 of the Land Acquisition Act and has also made the necessary deposit. The validity of the acquisition proceedings which are still pending disposal before the appropriate authority was challenged by the respondents before the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 786 of 1970. The appellant Society was not made a party to the aforesaid writ petition. Accordingly the appellant Society applied for being impleaded as a party to the writ petition, inter alia, on the assertion that it was a necessary party to the proc...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Janta Furniture Mart
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1970
Reported in: [1973]31STC392(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, has referred the following question :Whether the authority under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act shall not impose any penalty without the previous permission of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. 2. The reference relates to the year 1960-61.3. The respondent, Janta Furniture Mart, Deoria, was visited with a penalty for its failure to instal a diesel engine and a saw machine, obtained against 'C' forms, within a year. Apparently, the penalty was imposed under Section 10-A(l) by reference to the offence mentioned in Section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Section 10(d) makes a person punishable, if after purchasing any goods for any purpose specified by Section 8(3)(b) he fails, without reasonable excuse, to make use of the goods for such purpose. The assessee appealed against the order and the appeal was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax,...
Premier Motors (P.) Ltd. Vs. Ashok Tandon and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1970
Reported in: [1971]41CompCas656(All)
M.H. Beg, J.1. There are two connected applications before me made under Rule 79 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with Section 391(2) of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '), each for the sanction of a scheme to liquidate debts.2. The first application is a sequel of application No. 26 of 1969 made by M/s Premier Motors (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Premier Motors') under Section 391(1) of the Act for holding a meeting of its creditors who had lent money to the company under contracts for payment of 12% interest and re-payment of the principal amounts at the end of the periods contracted for. There were 710 such depositors whose deposits amounted to Rs. 33,50,000. The paid up capital of the company was Rs. 7,00,000 divided into equity shares of Rs. 100 each. It was alleged that there had been a continuous loss for four years prior to applying under Section 391(1) of the Act, on May 16, 1967, in the company's business of selling motor cars, t...
Brij Mohan Lal Rameshwar Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1970
Reported in: [1971]82ITR173(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Messrs. Brij Mohan Lal Rameshwar Lal is the asseseee. It is a Hindu undivided family. The assessment year is 1962-63.2. There was a registered firm by the name Messrs. Brij Mohan Lal Rameshwar Lal. Up to the assessment year 1961-62, the firm had two partners, Rameshwar Lal and Kundanlal. The two partners respectively repre-sented their Hindu undivided familes. On or about the 2nd of February, 1961, Kundanlal died. On February 3, 1961, the firm was reconstituted, partners of the reconstituted firm were Rameshwar Lal as the karta of his Hindu undivided family, Kundanlal's widow, Smt. Bharbati Devi, and her adopted son Prem Chand. Rameshwar Lal's minor son, Ghanshyam, was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. A fresh partnership deed was drawn up on February 22, 1161. In that partnership deed it was mentioned that out of the capital of the Hindu undivided family of Rameshwar lal, partner, a sum o...
Raja Ram Om Prakash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1970
Reported in: [1971]41CompCas1055(All)
Pathak, J.1. The petitioner is a commission agent dealing in grain. He has been served with a notice dated April 22, 1970, under Section 11 of the Emergency Risks (Goods) Insurance Act, 1962. The notice has been issued by the Chief Enforcement Officer, Emergency Risks Insurance Scheme, for the purpose of verifying whether the petitioner had complied with the requirements of that Act and the Scheme framed thereunder and for the examination of his emergency risks insurance policy. On April 22, 1970, the Chief Enforcement Officer served another notice under Section 11 of the Act requiring the petitioner to produce a number of documents.2. In Writ Petition No. 2262 of 1970, the petitioner, who carries on the same business, has received similar notices from the Chief Enforcement Officer.3. In Writ Petition No. 2996 of 1970, the petitioner, who is also a commission agent in the grain market, was served with a notice dated April 29, 1970, by the Chief Enforcement Officer pointing out that a c...
Hakim Ziaul Islam Vs. Mohd. Rafi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All302
K.B. Asthana, J.1. This is a defendant tenant's appeal from an appellate decree of ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages from the house in suit. The court of first instance had dismissed the plaintiff landlord's suit on the finding that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and that the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid. The lower appellate court reversed the finding of the learned Munsif on both the material issues and decreed the plaintiff-landlord's suit,2. On behalf of defendant-appellant two grounds have been raised in support of the appeal. The first ground was that one Mohammad Razi to whom the defendant had been paying rent was a necesary party to the suit and the suit was bad for non-impleading of the necessary party, the plaintiff having refused to make Mohammad Razi a party. This argument seems to be based on the plea raised in the written statement that Mohammad Razi was not the landlord, and it was Mohammad Razi who was...
iqbal NaraIn Srivastava Vs. the State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All178
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. These are 5 connected writ petitions in which thequestion raised is common, that is, whether the petitioners could be retired on attaining the age of 55 years under the provisions of Rule 56 of the U. P. Fundamental Rules. Sri Iqbal Narain Srivastava (hereinafter referred to as Sri Srivastava) is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 148 of 1968. He was working as a clerk in the Bench of Honorary Magistrates, Nawabganj, in the district of Barabanki in May 1966. On 3-5-1966 he received a communication from the Superintendent of the Deputy Commissioner, Barabanki, informing him that he had been placed under suspension by means of an order dated 3-5-1966. This was followed by a charge-sheet in which it was alleged that Sri Srivastava had demanded a sum of Rs. 2/- from Ram Sagar son of Sarju Prasad. The petitioner submitted his explanation. The Deputy Commissioner, Barabanki, respondent No. 2, issued a notice to Sri Srivastava calling upon him to show cause why the punis...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.R. Sons (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1970
Reported in: [1971]82ITR89(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J. 1. The short question for consideratian in this income-tax reference is whether two activities of an assessee constitute one business or two businesses. B. R. Sons (P.) Ltd., Kanpur, is the assessee. The assessment years are 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53.2. The assessee is a limited company, which was incorporated in 1945. Next year it acquired the managing agency of Meyer Mills Ltd. Under the terms of the agreement executed by the assessee for acquiring the managing agency, the assessee had to purchase the shares of the managed-company at an agreed price of Rs. 525 per share. For the assessment year 1947-48, the assessee claimed a huge loss of Rs. 21 lakhs and odd due to the revaluing of the shares of the managed-company at Rs. 273-12-0 per share as against the purchase price of Rs. 525 per share. The loss was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that it was capital loss. The same view was taken by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment years 1948-49 and...
Seth Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR693(All)
Pathak, J.1. In this and the connected writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of proceedings relating to the search and seizure of their account books and other documents under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Purporting to act under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the officers of the income-tax department raided the premises of the petitioners at Meerut on June 7 and 8, 1963, and seized and removed a large number of account books and other documents ....3. These petitions were filed on August 23, 1963. They were allowed by a Bench of this court on March 27, 1964, on the ground that the action taken by the income-tax authorities and officers constituted an abuse of power and was, therefore, mala fide.4. The Income-tax Officer appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not agree with the view taken by this court. It observed that the allegations of the petitioners had been denied by the income-taxauthorities, and if this court was...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »