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.
Rajan Singh Pradhan Vs. Additional District Magistrate (E) Agra and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All373
ORDERR.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner was the Pradhan of Gapn Sabha Marsena, district Agra. The Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Etmadpur, the second respondent, by an order dated November 5, 1969, removed the petitioner from the office of the Pradhan. The petitioner appealed to the Additional District Magistrate, Asra, respondent No. 1, but his appeal has also been dismissed. Hence this petition.3. A charge sheet was served upon the petitioner under Section 95 (g) (in) of the Panchavat Raj Act, which provides that a Pradan may be removed if he has abused this position as such or has persistently failed to perform his duties imposed by the Act or the Rules. There were three charges against him : firstly that he had collected on behalf of the Gaon Sabha a sum of Rs. 500/01, but had deposited a sum of Rs. 500.35. He had thus deposited 34 paise in excess, secondly that he had failed to realise a sum of Rs. 270/- as theka mon...
State Vs. Ulfatia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ994
S. Malik, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the order dated 9-7-1968 passed by Shri R. S. Rastogi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sahaswan district Budaun, acquitting the accused who is the respondent before this Court in a case under Section 25(a) of the Arms Act.2. The relevant facts are that after the charge had been framed by the Court below against the respondent, though some dates were fixed for prosecution evidence, the case could not be taken up for some reason or the other. Ultimately. 9-7-1968, the date on which the impugned order was passed, was fixed for the production of prosecution evidence. It appears from the order passed by the lower court that four prosecution witnesses were present but neither the Public prosecutor nor the Assistant Public Prosecutor appeared to produce the witnesses before the learned Magistrate under Sub-section (7) of Section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate thereupon sent information to the Public Prosecutor bu...
Nanhoo Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All433
Satish Chandra, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant to a suit for ejectment under Section 202 (f) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Smt. Beti Kunwar and Pratap Bhan Singh, the respondents instituted the suit on the ground that the defendant appellant was the Asami of the land in dispute and that the plaintiffs proposed to bring the land under their personal cultivation. The appellant contested the suit. He urged that the suit was barred by time because Pratap Bhan Singh, one of the plaintiffs, became a major and consequently his disability determined, more than three years prior to the suit. The trial Court accepted the defence and dismissed the suit. This decision was upheld in appeal. The plaintiffs went up to the Board of Revenue in second appeal and succeeded. The Board set aside the decrees of the authorities below and decreed the suit. The appellant then instituted a writ petition which failed. Hence the present appeal. 2. There is no dispute be...
Smt. Sukh Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All374
ORDERH. Swarup, J.1. Smt. Sukh Devi has filed this petition challenging the order of the State Government passed under Section 7-F of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as tine Act) by which the State Government allowed the revision filed by Puttan Lal Pandey, respondent No. 3, and cancelled the allotment order passed under Section 7 (2) of the Act directing the landlord to let out the accommodation in dispute to the petitioner Sink Sukh Devi.2. The premises in dispute belonged to Ram Narain and Sheo Shankar. There was a sitting tenant by name Bhagwan Din. Puttan Lal alleged that the shop had been vacated by Bhagwan Din and he applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for an order under Section 7 (2) of the Act in his favour. On 14-9-1960, an allotment order in favour of Puttan Lal was passed. A suit was then filed by Bhagwan Din against Puttan Lal for an injunction to restrain Puttan Lal from occupying the accommodation in dispute in...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax and ors. Vs. Padampat Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR799(All)
Dwivedi, J. 1. This is a reference under the Wealth-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Circle, Allahabad, at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Lucknow. Along with the statement of the case the Tribunal has referred this question :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the unpaid income-tax liability was allowable as a debt within the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act ?'2. The assessment years are 1957-58, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63, The assessee is an individual. During the war he earned certain income which was concealed from the income-tax authorities. A notice under Section 34(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was issued to him. Thereafter, there was a settlement under Section 34(1B) of the Income-tax Act. The settlement was signed by the assessee and his two brothers on January 17, 1957. It appears from the first clause of the settlement that the assessee and the department set...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›