Allahabad Court March 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.
Ram Das Chhedi Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ57
ORDERO.P. Trivedi, J.1. This revision has been filed by Ram Das against his conviction under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Ram Das was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 363. 366 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. He was however acquitted of these offences by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gonda but was convicted under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default six months rigorous imprisonment. On appeal the conviction was maintained and the sentence was reduced to one year but the sentence of fine was maintained. Ram Das has therefore come in revision before this Court,2. In short the prosecution case is that Smt. Sunderpata, who was a minor married girl, was abducted by Ram Das along with Babadin. who has submitted to the sentence and another accused who was acquitted, from the house of : her father Ram Dhiraj from v...
israr Ahmad and anr. Vs. Sant Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All559
K.B. Asthana, J. 1. This is a defendants-tenants appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge of Saharanpur evicting them from a house and for recovery from them the arrears of rent and damages. Admittedly, the defendants-appellants are the tenants of the plaintiff-respondent in a house situate in the city of Saharanpur on a monthly rental of Rs. 5/-. The defendant did not pay any rent after September, 1965. The landlord sent a notice dated 23-6-1967 served on the tenants on 24-6-1967 demanding the arrears of rent from September, 1965 up-to-date. The tenants sent the rent due by a money order but deducted from it a small sum as money order commission. The landlord refused to accept the money order as the amount tendered was not sufficient to satisfy the arrears of rent due. The landlord then caused another notice dated 21-8-1967 to be served on the tenants which was received by them on 22-8-1967. The said notice stated that' they having not complied with the previous ...
Tulsa Singh and ors. Vs. the Board of Revenue, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All430
Satish Chandra, J.1. The Board of Revenue has submitted this statement of the case with a reference tinder Section 57(1)(a) of the Indian Stamp Act.2. On 22nd March, 1966, the Cantonment Board Ranikhet, executed an indenture stating that in consideration of the purchase money of Rs. 7,525/- the Board had sold the right of collection of resin from the M. E. O. forests out of channels to be tapped during the year 1966. The tapping is to be started from 1st April, 196S and is to be completed by 15th October, 1966. Tulsa Singh, Bahadur Singh and Jaint Singh, the purchasers, were to deposit Rupees 5,643.50 P. upto 22nd July, 1966 and the balance Rs. 1,881.50 P. on or before the 15th August, 1966. The document was signed by the Vice-President of the Cantonment Board as well as the three purchasers. It was attested by two witnesses.3. A similar indenture was executed by the Board on 6th June, 1966 in favour of the same three persons. Under it, in consideration of the purchase money of Rupees ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Bhandar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1971
Reported in: [1974]94ITR315(All)
H.N. Seth, J. 1. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P., has made this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee in this case is a registered firm, Messrs. Bharat Bhandar. In the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee gave donations amounting to Rs. 15,530. It also derived income from a newly set up industry. The assessee claimed that it was entitled to rebate in respect of the aforesaiditems, under Sections 88 and 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer made an order holding that the assessee was entitled to claim rebate tinder Section 84 of the Income-tax Act 1961, and was entitled to an exemption of tax on a sum of Rs. 13,303 on this account. Thereafter, he proceeded to apportion the amount of exemption under Section 84 in the hands of individual partners. He apportioned the total donation of Rs. 15,530 also in the hands of individual partners. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, did not actually allow the rebate under Section 88 and relief...
Gopal Jalan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR317(All)
Pathak, J.1. The questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it could be said that a valid charitable trust was created by the settlor, Sri Hari Bux Rai, and whether the payment of interest to the trust by the assessee was rightly disallowed ? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the execution by the settlor of the deed of trust and registering the same would amountto a complete transfer and delivery of the possession and divesting of the amount mentioned therein from the settlor to the trustees of the trust?' This reference arises out of the assessment of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1961-62. Originally, a Hindu undivided family, Messrs. Harchandrai Hari Bux Rai, carried on business in Banarsi cloth. The family consisted of Hari Bux Rai Jalan, and his two sons, Sri Gopal Jalan and Vishwanath Prasad Jalan. The business suffered partition on or about October 22, 1938, a...
Raza Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR673(All)
Pathak, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 66(2), Indian Income-tax. Act, 1922 :'Whether there was any material on the record for not accepting the shortage in the production of yarn and in the production of cloth as disclosed by the assessee and what was the basis of the estimate of shortage made by the Income-tax Tribunal ?'2. The case relates to the assessment year 1950-51, for which the relevant previous year is the year ending December 31, 1949. The assessee is a public limited company incorporated in 1948, under the Rampur Companies Act and having its registered office at Rampur. It operates a textile unit at Rampur in which both spinning and weaving are carried on. The State of Rampur merged into the Dominion of India in 1949.3. For the assessment year 1950-51, which was the first assessment year under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of the assessee, the assessee filed a return showing a net loss of about Rs. 4,93...
Seth Shiv Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR15(All)
Pathak, J. 1. This reference has been made under Section 66(1), Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1960-61 (the relevant previous year being the financial year ending March 31, 1960), and the question of law referred is :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee's claim to deduct the interest payable on a loan incurred for acquiring an asset no more held by it was legally maintainable ?'2. The connected reference concerns the same assessee and in respect of the assessment year 1961-62. The questions of law referred are :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee's claim to deduct the interest payable on a loan incurred in acquiring an asset no more held by it was legally maintainable ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the legal expenditure amounting to Rs. 2,970 incurred by the assessee in defen...
Chhotey Lal and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ59
O.P. Trivedi, J.1. Chhotey Lal. Chandra Sen, Misri Lal and Rameshwer have been convicted by the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Hardoi under Sections 147 and 323, read with Section 149, I. P. C., Under the first count each of them. has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. In short the prosecution case is that some parti land was lying to the west of the field of Bisram complainant of which Chhotey Lal appellant had taken possession. That previous to the day of occurrence Chhotey Lal encroached upon a portion of the adjoining field of Bisram and wrongfully constructed a Mend which was resented by Bisram. On the day of occurrence i. e., on 9-1-1968 at about 8 a. m. Bisram and his brother Ram Bharosey started demolishing this Mend when all the appellants arrived armed with lathis and started beating up Bisram and Ram Bharosey. Their cries attracted Putai P. W. 4, Jagram P. W. 1, Prabhu P. W. 3 Tika and Umrao. In order to protect Bisram and Ram Bharosey, Jagram and...
Bhau Ram Jawaharmal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1971
Reported in: [1971]82ITR772(All)
PATHAK J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions under section 66(1), Income-tax Act, 1922 :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the gifts of Rs. 10,000 made by Ganpati Devi to Sita Devi on May 12, 1960, of Rs. 10,000 made by Murari Lal to Saroj Kumari on March 23, 1960, and Rs. 10,000 made by Brijmohan to Smt. Pushpa Devi on September 21, 1960, were valid in law 2. If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal was legally right in confirming the disallowance of interest on the same ?'For the purposes of appreciating the facts in this case, it appears convenient to set out the following family tree :Brijmohan (wife, Ganpati Devi) Murari Lal (wife, Sita Devi)Prabhat Kuma (wife, Pushpa Devi) Saroj Kumari (minor dauther)Brijmohan and his sons, Murari Lal and Prabhat Kumar, constitute a partnership firm, Messrs. Bhau Ram Jawahar Mal, the assessee before us, On March 23, 1960, Murari Lal purported t...
Ganga Glass Works (Private) Ltd., Balwali Vs. the State of U.P. and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All158; [1951]19ITR126(All)
ORDERB.N. Lokur, J.1. The petitioner approach-ed the Additional Collector, purportedly under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, for rectification of a map prepared under Section 27 (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act The Additional Collector declined to interfere on the ground that Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act barred a revenue court, inter alia, from entering upon the correctness or otherwise of a map prepared by the consolidation authorities. He also pointed out that the petitioner ought to have approached the consolidation authorities to correct the map under Section 42-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. In an appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Additional Commissioner took a different view and recommended to the Board of Revenue that the order of the Additional Collector be set aside and the case be remanded with a direction that the application be decided onmerits. The Board of Revenue, however, was inclined to agree with the Additional...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »