Allahabad Court February 1971 Judgments
Official Receiver, Varanasi Vs. Jagardeo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All551
B.D. Gupta, J. 1. This revision arises out of proceedings under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Some time in 1960, Jagardeo and Behari, arrayed as the first two opposite-parties in this revision, applied for being declared insolvents and there is no controversy that they were so declared some time in 1964, whereafter an Official Receiver, who is the applicant in this revision, was appointed. In the schedule of property stated to belong to Jagardeo and Behari, only certain moveables were mentioned. In July, 1965 the Official Receiver made an application purporting to be under Section 4 of the Act which stands dismissed by the order sought to be revised by this petition. In the application, the assertion made by the Official Receiver was that certain agricultural plots were 'Sirdari' plots of the insolvents which had been under the cultivation of the insolvents but the insolvents, under collusion with Basantu and Darbari, described ...
Tag this Judgment!ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR635(All)
Kirty, J.1. Pursuant to an order of this court dated July 28, 1964, under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has referred the following two questions along with the statement of the case :'(1) Whether upon the facts found by the Tribunal and/or admitted by and between the parties before the Tribunal in respect of the litigation in question for the assessment year 1953-54, it could be said that fees paid to counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 5 (Kedarnath Khetan and Radhey Kishun Khetan) was expenditure which was covered by the provisions of Section 10(2)(xv) of the Act?(2) Whether, on the facts found by the Tribunal and/or admitted by and between the parties before the Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1954-55 the expenditure incurred in a writ petition by Onkar Mal Khetan against Kedar Nath Khetan, who had been appointed authorised controller of the assessee-company could be claimed as deduction under Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Pioneer Consolidated Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1971
Reported in: [1972]85ITR410(All)
Oak, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Pioneer Consolidated Company of India, Ltd., New Delhi, is the assessee. The assessment year is 1962-63. The accounting year was the financial year 1961-62, 2. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on the business of clearing and forwarding agents, selling agents and commission agents.During the course of its business the company received various amounts from its constituents for incurring expenses for and on behalf of the constituents, and towards commission of the company for services rendered to the constituents. From the various amounts received by the company from a number of constituents a total sum of Rs. 29,643 was lying in the books of the company to the credit of those constituents up to 1960-61. Those amounts were not claimed by the respective constituents. During the relevant accounting year the assessee-company transferred the amount of Rs. 29,643 to the credit of its profit and...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nanhi Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR321(All)
Pathak, J.1. Two questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this court. They are as follows :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it could be said that no valid transfer or gift of the amounts in question by the assessee to her daughters-in-law was made in March, 1953 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was necessary for the assessee to make a fresh gift in respect of the disputed amount after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956 and whether the mere fact that she did not do so would result in her not becoming entitled to the benefit accruing under the aforesaid Act 2. One Sri Bal Kishan was a partner in the firm, M/s. Moola Chand Ram Prasad. He died in December, 1947. The assessee, his widow, inherited an amount of Rs. 2,56,998 which at the death of Bal Kishan stood to his credit in the books of the partnership. The assessee was assessed to income-tax on the inter...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Janki Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR348(All)
Pathak, J.1. The question referred for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 2,05,787 has to be deducted for computing the assessee-firm's income of the previous year '2. M/s. Janki Sugar Mills Company, the assessee before us, manufactures and sells sugar. During the previous year ending October 28, 1960, relevant to the assessment year 1961-62, it purchased its requirement of sugar-cane from sugar-cane growers' co-operative societies. In its accounts, which it maintained on the mercantile system, it debited the price of the sugar-cane. It also debited a sum of Rs. 2,05,787 as the additional price payable by it under Clause 3-A of paragraph 3 of S.R.O. No. 1863, dated August 27, 1955, issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The provision, as set out in the statement of the case, reads thus :' Where a producer of sugar or his agent purchases any sugar...
Tag this Judgment!Guddan and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All451
ORDERS.N. Dwivedi, J. 1. The dispute in this petition relates to an agricultural holding. The petition arises out of a suit instituted in the revenue Court by the petitioners under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. They prayed for a declaration that they were the bhumidhars of the plots. In the plaint they alleged that they were originally the fixed rate tenants of the plots that after the vesting of the Zamindari in the State they became bhumidhars of the plots, that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents second set, Prem Narain Agarwal, obtained a self liquidating mortgage of the plots from the Civil Court on August 31, 1945 for a period of 20 years with effect from May 1, 1944 in lieu of his decretal debt, that on the death of the said Prem Narain Agarwal, the respondents second set came into possession over the plots as mortgagees and that the respondents second set granted a lease of the plots to the respondents third set. It was alleged ...
Tag this Judgment!Zubeda Begum and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All452
ORDERB.N. Lokur, J. 1. These two petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment as the same questions of law arise in both the petitions.2. On the 9th March, 1970, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh issued two notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Both the notifications mentioned that the public purpose which was to be subserved by acquisition of the lands described therein was 'provision of married Officers' accommodation. Indian Air Force in District Gorakhpur.' One of the notifications also included the direction for taking possession of the lands under Section 17(1) of the Act and a further declaration dispensing with the provisions of Section 5A under Section 17(4). Since urgency provisions were applied by this notification, it will be hereafter referred to as 'the urgency notification.' The other notification did not apply the urgency provisions and called upon the interested parties to make objections under Section 5A. Thi...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Gulshan Trading Company and anr. Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC487(All)
S.N. Dwivedi, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is the business name and style in which the petitioner No. 2 carries on his business as commission agent in kirana. The petitioner No. 2 was assessed to sales tax of Rs. 50,880 for the assessment year 1969-70. He filed an appeal against the assessment order before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). The appeal is numbered 2455 of 1970. The appeals still pending.2. This petition owes its origin to certain provisions in the U.P. Sales Tax Act regarding grant of stay of recovery proceedings when an appeal is pending. Sections 9 and 10 of the Act are material for our purpose. These two sections were first amended by the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1970, and subsequently by the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (3 of 1971). Section 9(1) confers a right of appeal. It has got two provisos. The first proviso enacts that no appeal against an assessment shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the amo...
Tag this Judgment!Khyali Ram and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1365
ORDERH.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. Applicant Khyali Ram is admittedly the father of the minor Kalua. Under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, he is the natural guardian of the minor. It is true that the custody of a minor, who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother as provided under the aforesaid Act. As Khyali Ram is the natural guardian even if he has removed the minor from the custody of the mother, there is no question of his committing an offence Under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Section 361 of the Code runs as follows :Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardian.3. In order to constitute an offence Under Section 363 of the Indian Penal...
Tag this Judgment!Bindraban Das Vs. Nagar Swasthya Adhikari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1366
ORDERH.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. Applicant was convicted Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Act No. 37 of 1954 and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 750/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. According to the presecution, Sri. N. N. Dubey, Food Inspector, went to the shop of the applicant situated in Phullatti Bazar, Agra on 14-3-1962 at about 7.35 A. M. and found him selling Ghee. He purchased 12 ounces of Ghee from the applicant, divided it into three parts, handed over one of them to the applicant and sent one to the Public Analyst for his examination. The report of the Public Analyst indicated that the sample contained a large pro-portion of Vegetable fat or oil foreign to pure Ghee. Accordingly, a complaint was filed against the applicant for exposing for sale adulterated Ghee.2. The prosecution case was unfolded by Sri N. N. Dubey, Food Inspector, who had taken the sample. Applicant had pleaded not guilty and had denied that the sample was taken fro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »