Allahabad Court March 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.
Ramashanker Pathak Vs. the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All287
Mathur, J.1. The material question is whether an affidavit, where the deponent swears and not affirms, requires a stamp duty of Re. 1/-/- as prescribed in Article 4 of Schedule I-B of the Stamp Act, as amended by the U. P. Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 1969 (U. P. Act No. XI of 1969). Amended Article 4 runs as below:--'Affidavit, including an affirmation or declaration in the case of persons by law allowed to affirm or declare instead of Swearing--(a) for the immediate purpose of being filed or used in any Court or before an officer of any Court ..... One Rupee;(b) in any other case ..... Four Rupees and fifty paise. Exemptions -- Affidavit or declaration in writing when made--(a) as a condition of enrolment under the Army Act, 1950, the Air Force Act, 1950 or the Navy Act, 1957, or(b) for the sole purpose of enabling any person to receive any pension or charitable allowance.'; It shall be found that prior to the amendment affidavits made for the immediate purpose of being filed or used...
Soney Lal Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1970
Reported in: 1971CriLJ292
ORDERD.D. Seth, J.1. The facts of this reference, which has been made to this Court by the learned II Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, are that one Bachchan Lal Avasthi filed a report against Soney Lal and a case against the applicant under Sa. 452/323, Penal Code was registered by the police authorities of police station Nawabganj, Kanpur. The polioe authorities of that police station carried on the investigation against the applicant and on 29th December 1968 the investigating officer submitted a final report to the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Kanpur, and on that report, on 27th January 1969, the learned Magistrate passed the following order :I. O. has given the report Under Section 169 of the Criminal P.C. So the accused be released.'2. Before the learned Magistrate passed this order Bachchan Lai, on 6th January 1969, had filed an application before the learned Magistrate that the police authorities of police station Nawabganj were colluding with the applicant and that ...
Agarwal Brothers Vs. Income-tax Officer, F-ward
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1970
Reported in: [1971]79ITR101(All)
Pathak, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm consisting of four partners. It carries on business in gold and silver ornaments.2. For the assessment year 1953-54, the Income-tax. Officer assessed the petitioner on an income of Rs. 10,303 by an assessment order dated July 29, 1953. It is alleged that the petitioner-firm was dissolved in 1959. Subsequently, a notice dated June 26, 1965, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was served on Murari Lal, a former partner of the firm. The Income-tax Officer made an assessment order dated March 10, 1969, under Section 147 of the Act of 1961, computing the total income at Rs. 71,072. Aggrieved by the assessment order the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.3. Sri S. B. L. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the assessment proceeding lay under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and not under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He urges that inasmuch as the income sa...
G.D. Bhargava and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1970
Reported in: [1970]40CompCas664(All)
M.H. Beg, J. 1. This application under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by three directors of Radha Govind Industries Ltd., Kosi Kalan, Mathura, sets out a history of the company concerned. It mentions that the chairman of the board of directors of the company, Rai Saheb Govind Das Bhargava, had died on June 19, 1965, and that his eldest son, G.D. Bhargava, the first of the three applicants, was a patient of high blood pressure, who had also suffered a heart attack. It states that the relations between the sons of the deceased, Rai Saheb Govind Das Bhargava, became strained so that L.D. Bhargava, I.A.S., demanded the return of the entire sum of money loaned by him to the company. A winding up application made by L.D. Bhargava in this court, with the result that the money lent by him was paid back to him, as well as an investigation instituted by the Company Law Board, early in 1963, into the affairs of the company, are mentioned, presumab...
Mahadeo Prasad Shanker Lal Vs. Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Varanasi R ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC265(All)
R.S. Pathak, J. 1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the validity of certain proceedings under the U,P. Sales Tax Act in respect of the year 1954-55,2. The petitioner carries on business in bullion and ornaments. On 28th April, 1955, the petitioner made an application in form V for exemption from tax on the sale of bullion under Section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the year 1954-55. It was accompanied by a cheque of Rs. 100. The application disclosed that the sales were estimated below Rs. 50,000. On 25th July, 1955, the Sales Tax Officer made an order determining the turnover of bullion at Rs. 3,50,000 and computing the exemption fee thereon at Rs. 500. He directed the petitioner to deposit the balance, namely, Rs. 400, within ten days of the receipt of the order. The amount was not deposited within the time fixed. On 17th March, 1956, the petitioner gave a cheque for Rs. 400 to the Sales Tax Officer. The cheque was dishonoured, and it...
Chief Inspector of Stamps, Allahabad Vs. Murlidhar Kanodia, Kanpur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1970
Reported in: AIR1970All599
Pathak, J.1. I agree with my brother Parekh that the questions must be answered in the negative.2-3. The question is whether the instrument before us is a power of attorney given for consideration and authorising the attorney to sell immovable property. If it is so, the proper stamp duty is the same as a conveyance for the amount of the consideration. There is no dispute that the instrument is a power of attorney authorising the Bank as attorney to sell immovable property. The question is whether the power of attorney has been given for consideration. The executants say that there is no consideration, while the Revenue contends that the instrument has been given for consideration and that the consideration is the amount of the two decrees.4. There was a compromise between the Bank and the executants in the suits filed by the Bank, and the power of attorney was executed and given to the Bank in compliance with the terms of the compromise. Under the instrument, the Bank has been authoris...
Ganga Ram Vs. Smt. Phulwati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1970
Reported in: AIR1970All446
S.D. Khare, J.1. In this second appeal the main point for consideration is-What presumptions may be drawn when it is found that a combined notice of demand of rent under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (3 of 1947) and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (as amended by Act 20 of 1929) was sent by registered post by the landlord to the correct address of the tenant, but was received back by the landlord undelivered with an endorsement made by some one in the post office that the addressee had refused to take the notice on a particular day.2. The plaintiff had not led any evidence to show that the endorsement had been made by the postman concerned. In second appeal filed by the tenant the contention is that in the absence of such evidence having been led on behalf of the plaintiff no presumption of service could be made under Section 114 of the Indian Eviction Act.3. The appeal came up for hearing first before a learned single Judge, who formula...
Mak and Co. Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1970
Reported in: [1970]26STC455(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. In both these references the following common question of law has been referred to us under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on the record, as discussed by me in my revisional order dated 6th March, 1969 and by the appellate court in its order dated 27th January, 1966, the applicant-auctioneer is a 'dealer' so as to make him liable to pay sales tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act.2. The assessment years involved are 1962-63 and 1963-64.3. The assessee was an auctioneer. He conducted auctions of trees, fruit crops, unserviceable materials and household goods of certain Government departments. He was assessed on his turnover relating to the auction of trees and unserviceable materials and household properties. The assessee filed an appeal and urged that since, in view of the contract between him and the Government departments, he had no authority to sell, he was not a 'dealer' as defined by the U...
Gurna Mal Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1970
Reported in: [1970]26STC270(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This and the connected batch of writ petitions have been filed by the manufacturers of bricks and raise a common question as to whether the turnover of bricks can be assessed to tax under a notification issued under Section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm which carries on the business of manufacture and sale of bricks at Sheopur in the district of Varanasi and is a registered dealer under the Act. The petitioner's allegation is that the sales tax department had been levying tax on the petitioner on the sale of bricks under notifications issued under Section 3-A of the Act at a rate higher than the rate prescribed in Section 3 and that the sales tax department is seeking to levy tax in respect of the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68, which are pending at the rate of 7 per cent, under Notification No. S.T. 6438/X-1012-1962, dated 1st December, 1962. The petitioner contends that the notification of 1st December, 1962, as...
Karamendra NaraIn Ajai NaraIn Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC102(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. The Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Agra, has submitted this statement of the case under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the opinion of this court on the following question of law:Whether a rectification order, assessing the assessee to tax on an escaped turnover, can be passed in proceedings under Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act when, direct assessment of the said 'escaped turnover' has become time-barred under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act2. The assessee is a firm supplying oil-seeds to Prag Ice and Oil Mills, Aligarh. For the year 1958-59, proceedings under Section 21 of the Act were taken against the assessee, during which the assessee contended that it acted merely as a purchasing agent to Prag Ice and Oil Mills, Aligarh, and, in support of the contention, it produced the accounts as well as filed an affidavit. The Sales Tax Officer accepted the plea of the assessee and passed an assessment order dated 27th February, 1962, holdi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »