Allahabad Court December 1971 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.
Nirmal Dass Khaturia and ors. Vs. the State Transport (Appellate) Trib ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All200
Pathak, J. 1. This reference by a Division Bench raises some important questions concerning the respective areas of jurisdiction of the judges of this Court sitting at Allahabad and the judges of this Court sitting at Lucknow.2. In the instant writ petition, the following four questions have been referred for the opinion of the Full Bench:'1. Can a case falling within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of this Court be presented at Allahabad? 2. Can the Judges sitting at Allahabad summarily dismiss a case, presented at Allahabad, pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench? 3. Can a case pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench, presented and entertained at Allahabad, be decided finally by the judges sitting at Allahabad, without there being an order as contemplated by the second proviso to Article 14 of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948? 4. What is the meaning of the expression 'in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh' used in the first p...
Gobardhan Singh Vs. Barsati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All246
G.C. Mathur, J. 1. This revision has been referred to this Bench for consideration of the question whether the decision of a Division Bench of this Court In Gaya Din v. Lalta Prasad : AIR1936All477 is still good law. Doubts have been cast on the correctness of this decision on account of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahanth Ram Das v, Ganga Das : [1961]3SCR763 .2. Since the entire revision has been referred for decision, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts. The suit, out of which this revision arises, was filed on July 4. 1966. by the applicant in the court of the Munsif. Mirzapur. Some amendments in the plaint were allowed by the Munsif by his order dated April 11, 1967. Consequent to the^e amendments, there was a deficiency in the court-fees by Rs. 249.50 as reported by the Munsarim on August 4, 1967. The deficiency in court-fees was not made good within the time allowed and on October 4. 1967, the plaint was rejected as insufficiently stamped. On October 19, 1967. ...
Fazlur Rahman Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1971
Reported in: [1973]90ITR479(All)
G.C. Mathur, J. 1. This is a special appeal against the judgment of Manchanda J. dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging a notice dated September 14, 1961, issued under Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. The accounting year of the appellant for his business income was the calendar year. During the course of the examination of the appellant's account books in connection with the assessment for the assessment year 1947-48 (corresponding to the accounting year 1946), the Income-tax Officer noticed that 20 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each were encashed by the appellant on January 19, 1946. The Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee by a notice under Section 23(3) to explain the nature arid source of the income of Rs. 20,000. The explanation of the assessee was that the notes were out of the closing balance of Rs. 23,916 on the evening of January 11, 1946. This explanation was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer who held that th...
A.H. Wheeler and Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1971
Reported in: [1973]88ITR231(All)
1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single judge dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The appellant was assessed to income-tax and super-tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 by orders dated November 21, 1960, and March 30, 1961, respectively. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 35 of the Act for each assessment year pointing out that there was an error apparent on the record which called for rectification. It appears that having regard to the amount of dividend distributed by the assessee in the respective previous years, the super-tax rebate should have been reduced. As that had not been done, the super-tax payable by the assessee had been under-charged. The appellant objected to the rectification proceedings. But, on July 17, 1962, the Income-tax Officer made two separate orders under Section 35 of the Act for the two assessment years pur...
Rai Bahadur Seth Gujar Mal Modi and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR159(All)
Hari Swarup, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge, dismissing the writ petition. The petition was filed against the orders of the Income-tax Officer, requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,61,378. Five notices had been issued to the petitioner under Section 34(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The petitioner on 8th September, 1955, applied to the Central Board of Revenue under Section 34(1B) for a settlement of the matter relating to the assessment for the years 1940-41 to 1946-47. The proposed settlement was accepted by the Central Board of Revenue and an order was passed under Section 34(1B) of the Act on November 19, 1955. Under the terms of the settlement, the total income of the assessee was held to be Rs. 65,05,053. In the settlement the money payable was held to be Rs. 44,06,672. Out of this amount' Rs. 16,06,672 having already been collected, a sum of Rs. 28 lakhs remained to be paid. There was a clause in the settlement which req...
Karim Ullah Vs. Phool Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ930
P.N. Bakshi, J.1. The accused Phool Chand was convicted by the first class Magistrate. Bulandshahr under Section 325 I P.C. by his judgment dated August 27. 1968. The Magistrate directed him to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 500/- with two sureties of like amount. The accused filed an appeal which was allowed by the Civil and Sessions Judge Bulandshahr by his judgment dated 4th September. 1968. The Sessions Judge gave the accused the benefit of doubt and acquitted him of the charge under Section 325 I. P.C. Karim Ullah has filed the present appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 417 Cr. P.C.2. The prosecution case is that on 20th June, 1967 at about 8-45 A. M. Karirn Ullah and Nawab Ali were working as carpenters in the yard of the Railway Station Dadri. It is said that Phool Chand and his Munib Bassi reached there and asked Karim Ullah to cut the logs of the wood belonging to the acc...
Firm Roshak Lal Gulzari Lal and ors. Vs. Firm Ramesh Chand Vinod Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All284
Kirty, J. 1. K. B. Asthana. J. has referred this revision for decision by a Division Bench, because in his opinion it involves questions of law of sufficient importance. 2. Firm Ram Chand Vinod Chand, the opposite party had filed a suit for recovery of some money against the applicants. This suit was decreed. The decree-holder firm then applied for execution of the decree by attachment and sale of two plots of agricultural land numbered 237/2 and 929. The said plots were attached on 19-12-1961 and ultimately sold at an auction held on 3-3-1964. The decree-holders were the purchasers. The sale was confirmed on 4-4-1964. Sale certificate was issued to the purchasers on 2-5-1967. The decree-holders as purchasers filed an application in the executing court under Order XXI, Rule 95 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that 'possession be delivered over plot No. 1173 (area 2 bighas 4 biswas and 7 biswansis), after amendment of the sale certificate. Along with this app...
The Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad and ors. Vs. L. Kashi Nath Je ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All231
Gopi Nath, J.1. This Is a special appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated August 10, 1971, allowing a writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondent. The Collector. Central Excise and others, the opposite parties in the writ petition are the appellants and Lala Kashi Nath Seth, Jewellers is the petitioner-respondent. The writ petition challenged an order of seizure made by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Lucknow and other officers of the Department. The officers seized 2583 pieces of ornaments weighing 22151.370 grams of gold which was the entire stock in trade with the petitioner-respondent on 27-4-1971. This was challenged on the ground that it was illegal and arbitrary and was meant to harass the petitioner-respondent.2. The petitioner-respondent Is a licensed dealer in gold, gold ornaments and articles of gold. It is authorised to acquire, possess and dispose of gold and gold ornaments and other articles of gold in accordance with the provisions of the Gol...
Kiran Bahadur Singh Vs. Harikrishan Mathur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All369
K.B. Asthana, J.1. This is a defendant tenant's appeal from a decree of the appellate Court evicting him from a house in suit and awarding arrears of rent and damages in favour of the plaintiffs landlords. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit but the lower appellate Court by reversing the trial Court decreed the suit.2. Sri Gopal Behari, learned counsel appearing for the defendant appellant agitated a large number of questions of law in support of the appeal, but I think for the purpose of deciding this appeal I need not notice all the grounds urged in support of the appeal except the one on the question of the defendant tenant having failed to pay the arrears of rent demanded by the plaintiffs-landlords by a notice under Section 3 (1) (a) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, as my answer to that question would be conclusive of the appeal.3. Admittedly the plaintiff landlords who are real brothers inherited the house in dispute from their ancestors...
The State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Raj Kumar JaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All444
K.N. Srivastava, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of U. P. arising out of the following facts:The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for ejectment of the State of U. P. and the Civil Surgeon, Dehradun on the ground of their being in arrears of rent for more than three months and had not been paid in spite of notice. The premises was taken for running a hospital. The tenancy was from month to month but the rent was to be paid annually to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs therefore filed the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment after serving notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 80, C. P. C.2. The suit was contested by the State of U. P. on the ground that the notice under Section 80, C. P. C., was bad and that the tenancy was an annual tenancy and the rent had to be paid by the end of March.3. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court held that the tenancy was from month to month. Now this fact is not in controversy. The suit of the plaintiff was dec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »