Allahabad Court November 1971 Judgments
Nanak Chand Vs. Goswami Preetam Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All166
ORDERS.N. Katju, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no force in this application. The suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was decreed ex parte against the defendant-applicant on 11-11-1968. On 25-2-1969, an application under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code was filed by the applicant for setting aside the ex parte decree. The trial court passed an order, the operative portion of which is as follows:--'Allowed on payment of Rs. 10/- as costs subject to the condition that the applicant should deposit Rs. 394.15 as rent of the period from 18-8-1965 to 12-8-1968 and alleged monthly damages of Rs. 11/- commencing from 17-8-1968 upto date by 30-5-1969 failing which the application shall stand automatically rejected.'The applicant did not make the necessary payment of the amount but moved an application on 29-5-1969 praying that the time for payment should be extended by 31-5-1969. The applicant made another application in which he stated that he was depositin...
Tag this Judgment!Griftar Alla Bux and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1971
Reported in: 1973CriLJ12
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. Lal Mohammad and 9 others were sent up for trial for an offence of kidnapping a minor girl Km. Shivpata. In the first week of August, 1966, from Basuha. Hamlet of village Kachnapurwa, Police Station Colonel-gani, district Gonda. from the lawful guardianship of her aunt Smt. Bitto and also for keeping her wrongfully confined and concealed. The trial Court found Lal Mohammad and Smt. Gaffora guilty under Section 363. Indian Penal Code and convicted them to rigorous imprisoment for three years. They were acquitted for the charge under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, Shaukat and Siddiq son of Ramzan were found guilty under Section 368 read with Section 109. I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. They were acquitted under Section 366. Indian Penal Code Mustafa Smt. Sahoora. Griftar and Smt. Sona were found guilty under Section 368. Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The charge under Section 366. Indian P...
Tag this Judgment!Shamsher Bahadur Mehrotra Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1971
Reported in: [1973]90ITR523(All)
Mathor, J. 1. This special appeal is directed against an order of Manchanda J. dated November 11, 1963, by which he has reviewed his earlier order dated August 13, 1962, allowing Writ Petition No. 1558 of 1962 Shamsher Bahadur Mehrotra v. Income-tax Officer, Kanpur [1963] 50 I.T.R. 156 (All.). filed by the appellant. The writ petition was filed against proceedings for the recovery of arrears of income-tax and was based on the ground that the recovery proceedings were time-barred. In his judgment allowing the writ petition, Manchanda J. held that the notice of demand was served on March 30, 1955, the recovery proceedings should have been taken by March 31, 1956, and, since the recovery certificate was actually issued on December 24, 1956, the recovery proceedings were time barred. He, accordingly, allowed the writ petition. In the review application filed by the respondents, it was asserted that two very important and relevant documents had been suppressed by the appellant. These docume...
Tag this Judgment!Babu and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ815
M.N. Shukla, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Civil and Sessions Judge, Meerut dated 23-9-1968 convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34. I. P.C. and sentencing each one of them to undergo imprisonment for life, They were further convicted under Section 201, I. P. C. and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment each. The two sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The murder of one Baru is alleged to have been committed by the appellants about eight or ten days prior to 25-3-1968. the latter being the date when a report was lodged with the Police about the disappearance of Baru. The appellants were also charged under Section 201. I. P. C. for burying the dead body of Baru in a sugarcane field with the intention of screening themselves from the punishment for committing the offence of murder. The appellant Babu is the real nephew of the deceased, being the son of Mangal Sen (brother of Baru). The appellant Mahipal was a servant of...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhu Dayal and anr. Vs. Leela Dhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All269
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. This is an appeal bythe defendants. The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that they and the defendants were descended from a common ancestor Hari Shah. It was asserted that there were about 500 descendants of Hari Shah in Qasba Sikandarabad while some other descendants reside outside. It was alleged that the defendants were the owners of the disputed courtyard which was situated inside, and that from time immemorial, the descendants of Hari Shah had been doing Pooja on the occasion of Holi. and also burning Holi and performing other rites connected thereto in that court-yard, as of right and without any interruption. The plaintiffs' grievance is that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had prevented them from performing the aforesaid acts on the occasion of Holi. which has caused immense mental suffering to the plaintiffs and hence the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from preventing the descendants of Hari Shah from performing Pooja and other rites connected with H...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Sen Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All378
Satish Chandra, J.1. On 26th March. 1969. the State Government issued a notification under Section 4(1). Land Acquisition Act, notifying that the land mentioned in the schedule thereto was needed for public purposes. Plots Nos. 283. 284 and 285 along with several other plots of village Jamalpur Mafi were included in this notification. In due course on 13th November, 1969, the State Government issued the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act in respect of the plots which were mentioned in the notification under Section 4. On 27th July. 1970 however, the State Government issued a notification stating that the Governor is pleased to make the following amendments in the notification dated 13th November, 1969. The amendments were the deletion of plot No. 283 and the reduction of the areas of plots Nos. 284 and 285 by one biswa each. The effect of this amendment was that the Section 6 notification stood amended by deletion of plot No. 283 therefrom and reducing the area of plots Nos. 28...
Tag this Judgment!Behari Lal Ramcharan Kothi Vs. Income-tax Officer, B-ward and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR198(All)
Pathak, J. 1. The petitioner applies under Article 226 of the Constitution against recovery proceedings taken by the Income-tax Officer and the Tax Recovery Officer. 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on banking and cloth business. For the purpose of recovery of income-tax dues, the Tax Recovery Officcr, Income-tax, Kanpur, attached the petitioner's immovable properties on January 27, 1967, and this was followed by a notice dated February 7, 1967, for setting the sale proclamation with a view to theirsale. The petitioner objected to the recovery proceedings, but the proceedings have not been, dropped. The petitioner contends that the recovery proceedings are illegal because no tax remains due from the petitioner, that in any event there is no recovery certificate to support the recovery proceedings and that no notice under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, was ever served upon the petitioner. The petition is opposed by the respondents. 3. After he...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Gulab Rai Govind Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1971
Reported in: [1972]85ITR308(All)
H. Swarup, J.1. This reference has come to us on an application made by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, U P. I, Lucknow, under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.2. The question of law referred to us is:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was rightly excluded from the computation of the assessee's wealth ?' 3. The facts leading to the reference are that there was a Hindu undivided family consisting of R B. Hari Kishan Das and his son, Sri Kishan Das and his sons. There was a partial partition in the family in 1942 between Hari Kishan Das and Sri Kishan Das and his two sons, Om Prakash and Laxmi Prakash. Hari Kishan executed a will by which Rs. 6 lakhs left by him devolved equally on his two grandsons, Om Prakash and Laxmi Prakash, after the death of Hari Kishan on January 37, 1944. A third son, Prakash, was born to Sri Kishan on August 25, 1949. Sri Kishan, the karta of the Hindu undivided family purported to transfer through book ...
Tag this Judgment!British India Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1971
Reported in: [1973]89ITR138(All)
Pathak, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 50,000 was a capital expenditure which could not be allowed as a deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 '2. The assessee, the British India Corporation Ltd., Kanpur, carries on the business of manufacture and sale of woollen goods, cotton textiles and hides and leather products. The activity of tanning hides and manufacturing leather products is carried on under the name and style of Cooper Alien and North West Tannery branches. For the assessment year 1959-60 (the relevant accounting year being the calendar year ending December 31, 1958), the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 50,000 paid to Messrs. Textile & General Supplies Private Ltd., Bombay, to whom we shall refer as' Textile & General Supplies '. The claim was made on the basis that the assessee was bound und...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Dubey Vs. Smt. Awinash Talwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All237
Satish Chandra, J.1. Kanhaiya Lal Dubey, the defendant-appellant and Smt. Awinash Talwar, the plaintiff-respondent, carried on business in partnership. On disputes having arisen, they in October, 1962, executed an agreement referring their disputes to the arbitration of Sri Bhusharan Sharma. According to the plaintiff's case, the arbitrator entered on the reference and conducted the proceedings from 15th October to 22nd December. 1962. On 23rd December 1962, the arbitrator pronounced the award. It was signed by the arbitrator as well as by both the parties to the disputes. The arbitrator gave a copy of the award to each party. The award was that Kanhaiya Lal Dubey. the appellant, should pay Rs. 28,000/- to the plaintiff-respondent in instalments. The first instalment was of Rs. 7,000/- payable immediately. On this amount being paid, the appellant was entitled to the possession of the shop where the partnership business had till then been carried on. The same day, namely on 23rd Decembe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »