Allahabad Court April 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.
Trilok Singh Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All52
K.B. Asthana, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the husband from the appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Ballia, affirming the decree of the Court of first instance, dismissing the petition for grant of divorce and in the alternative for judicial separation.2. Admittedly the petitioner-appellant and the respondent were married on 7-2-1960 according to Hindu rites. For some time the husband and wife lived together amicably. According to the case of the husband, in his absence the wife went away on 30th of July 1960 without any cause and without his consent with her father and despite repeated efforts made by him for her to come back, she refused. A notice dated 12-8-1960 was served by the husband on the wife asking her to return. It appears that the wife had conceived when she was living with her husband soonafter the marriage and a son was born to her on 25-3-1961 at her father's house-On 28-7-1961 the husband filed a suit against the wife for restitution o...
Sri Ram Swarath Singh Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC134(All)
S.N. Dwivedi, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act by the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Gorakhpur. He has referred, along with the statement of case, these two questions :(1) Whether the second notice fixing 17th March, 1962, for hearing could be issued under the first proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act during the pendency of the proceedings started on 24th February, 1959, when the first notice was issued?(2) Whether service of the second notice under Section 21 of the Act would extend the period of 4 years for a further period of one year from the date of service of the notice ?2. It appears to us that these questions are not happily framed. Accordingly we reframe a single question as follows:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessment made under Section 21(1) is validly made within one year of the date of the service of the second notice issued after the service of the first no...
Thakur Dass Vs. Chagan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All563
ORDERB.N. Lokur, J.1. Sri Bankey Bihari Refugees Co-operative Housing Society allotted plot No. 62 admeasuring 2200 sq. feet to petitioner Thakur Dass for Rs. 300/- as a transfer certificate was issued on the 18th April, 1961. Adjoining this plot was an open space admeasuring 440 sq. feet. As this open space was regarded as useless, it was allotted to Thakur Dass at his request on payment of additional price of Rs. 60. On the 27th July 1962, a frash transfer certificate was issued showing that the open space of 440 sq. feet was also included in plot No. 62 which was described therein as admeasuring 2640 sq. feet. On the 23rd September, 1963, the Society informed Thakur Dass that the Managing Committee of the Society had cancelled the allotment of the open space of 440 sq. feet and the additional price paid by Thakur Dass would be refunded to him.That open space was on the same day allotted to Chhagan Lal, opposite party No. 1, who immediately started constructing a house thereon. Aggri...
M.M.L. Sahni and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All156
ORDERJagdish Sahai, J.1. This petition by M. M. L. Sahni made under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India contains the prayer that a writ of cer-tiorari be issued and the notice dated 3rd October, 1967 issued by the District Controller of Stores, the order of the District Controller of Stores dated 26th October, 1967 and the letter of the Assistant Engineer, Head Quarters, Northern Railway, Lucknow dated 9th November, 1967 (Annexures 9, 10 and 13 respectively) be quashad. There is also a prayer for the issue of a writ, direction or order in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the respondents, the Union of India, the Controller of Stores, the District Controller of Stores and the Assistant Engineer, Northern Railway from ousting the petitioner from the accommodation belonging to -the Railway, which he is occupying, or from demolishing the same. There is also a prayer to tssue a writ, direction or order In the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to place ...
Manohar Das and ors. Vs. the Board of Revenue, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All523
Satish Chandra, J.1. The Board of Revenue has submitted this statement of the case and has referred the following questions to this Court under Section 57, Stamp Act :--'1. Whether the document under reference is a deed of dissolution of partnership cum instrument of partition under Article 45, Schedule I-B of the U. P. Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1962 read with Section 6 of the same Act? 2. If so, whether liabilities which do not constitute a charge against the properties to be partitioned are required to be deducted from the value of the assets allotted to each co-owner? 3. If answer to the above question be in the affirmative, then it may also kindly be indicated as to what is the value of the two shares in this case for the purpose of calculating duty under Article 45 aforesaid? 4. In case the document is not aninstrument of partition, is it merely a deed of dissolution of partnership and is chargeable under Article 4G-B, Sche-dule I-B of the U. P. Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1962 with a fix...
Gopal NaraIn and anr. Vs. Kanchanlal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All556
R. B. Misra, J. 1. The present Special Appeal arises out of consolidation proceedings. The dispute between the parties relates to plots Nos. 154, 171 and 177. Gopal Narain and Tula Ham were the tenants of these plots. They surrendered them in favour or the land-holder Smt. Rani Chauhani on 14th July, 1943. The land-holder came in possession over the plots. On 9th December, 1944, the land-holder settled the plots with Kanchan Lal, Raghubir, Ram Kishan and Babu Ram (hereinafter to be referred to as the newly inducted tenants).2. In 1947 the U. P. Tenancy Act of 1939 was amended by the U. P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947 (Act No. X of 1947). It was designed to give relief to certain tenants who had suffered at the hands of the zamindars. Section 27 (1) of U. P. Act X of 1947 gave relief to tenants who had been ejected under Section 165 or Section 171 or Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 27 of U. P. Act X of 1947 gave relief to such tenants who had surrendere...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Rani Krishna Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR94(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. At the instance of the revenue the Appellate Tribunalhas referred the following question for the opinion of this court, under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957,' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was competent to recall its order dated April 27, 1961 'The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, valuing certain buildings, preferred two appeals in respect of assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated April 27, 1961, suo motu, referred the question of valuation to two valuers under Sub-section (6) of Section 24 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The revenue appointed its valuer but the assessee expressed her inability to do so and requested the Tribunal to recall its order referring the matter to the valuers and to value the property itself. The revenue opposed the said request on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to recall its ord...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. New Punjab Calcutta Transport Co. (P.) ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR844(All)
Pathak, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment made under Section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was illegal and accordingly accepting the assessee's appeal against the order under Section 27 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and further cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 271(I)(i) of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in transport business. It was incorporated in May, 1959, and closed its account for the first time on December 31, 1960. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1961-62, the relevant year of account being the calendar year 1960.3. On April 24, 1961, a notice under Section 22(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was published in the press requiring every person whose total income during the previous...
Chandra Shekhar and ors. Vs. Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All76
ORDERK.B. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, raises a point of law.2. The dispute between the petitioners Chandra Shekhar. Sheo Shanker and Hari Shanker and the respondent Beni Madho and Harakh Narain and Shrimati Dhanpati and her minor sons Sheo Kumar, Om Prakash, Gyan Pra-kash, Anil Kumar and Rakesh Kumar related to the plots comprised in Khatas 3, 25 and 65, situate in Punpur, hamlet of village Kheda, in the district of Sultan-pur. These Khatas comprised several plots including plots Nos. 25, 37 and 1145. All the plots stood recorded in the name of Beni Madho, opposite party No. 4. During the consolidation operations, the petitioners filed an objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, opposite party No. 3. Similar objections were filed by Harakh Narain, opposite party No. 5 and by Dhanpati on her own behalf and on behalf of her five minor sons. Dhanpati and her minor sons have not been impleaded as parties to this writ petition. Eac...
Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1971
Reported in: [1972]85ITR363(All)
Pathak, J. 1. The petitioner, Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd., manufactures and sells sugar, confectionery and other sugar products.2. During the financial year 1960-61, the petitioner paid a total sum of Rs. 5,47,002 in four instalments as advance tax under Section 18A, Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer,' Special Investigation Circle A, Meerut, completed the assessment for the assessment year 1961-62 and made an assessment order dated March 30, 1966, under Section 23(3) of the Act. The total income was assessed at Rs. 15,37,580. By an order dated February 12, 1968, the figure was revised to Rs. 15,39,048. The petitioner appealed against the assessment. On February 27, 1969, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range III, Meerut, reduced the figure of assessable income considerably and directed the Income-tax Officer to give effect to the reduction and modify the assessment accordingly. On July 15, 1969, the Income-tax Officer, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »