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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raja Mohd. Amir Ahmad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1971
Reported in: [1975]100ITR433(All)
Dwivedi, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred for the court's opinion this question : ' Whether/on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs levied on the assessee was not sustainable in law '2. It seems to us that the question is not happily framed. We are reframing the question in this manner : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's opinion that the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs could not be levied on the assessee is erroneous in law '3. We now proceed to deal with the question as reframed by us. 4. The assessee, Raja Mohammed Amir Ahmad Khan, was a Taluqdar. His estate was situated in the District of Sitapur. He was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1942-43, the relevant year being the year ending on September 30, 1941. The assessee had income from property, dividends and other sources....
SahebdIn and anr. Vs. Jhulai Gadaria and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All546
K.N. Srivastava, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh, allowing an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Haveli, Azamgarh and decreeing the plaintiff's suit with costs.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:3. The plaintiff brought a suit on the allegation that the defendants stopped the flow of the drain of the plaintiff's house and therefore, prayed for an injunction.4. The defendants contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that the house in question was a new one and the defendants had not stopped the flow of the plaintiffs Nabdan as alleged by the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the Nabdan never flowed as alleged by the plaintiff.5. The learned Munsif held that the plaintiff had no right to flow his Nabdan as alleged by him and dismissed the suit,6. On appeal, the learned lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had perfected his ease...
Dyer MeakIn Breweries Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC69(All)
S.N. Dwivedi, J. 1. The Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax has referred to the court this question:Whether under these circumstances the amount of deposit of these containers which remained unrefunded because of the non-return of the containers can be treated to be the turnover about the sale of these containers in the regular course of business of the applicant-dealer or not ?2. The reference was earlier heard by another Bench of two Judges. The Bench directed the Judge (Revisions) to submit an additional statement of the case in regard to certain matters. The Judge (Revisions) has submitted the additional statement of the case. The case has now been heard by us.3. The assessment year is 1958-59. The assessee, M/s. Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. (now styled as Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd.) is a dealer, inter alia, in beer, rum and country liquor. In the said assessment year it sold beer and country liquor to licensed wholesale vendors and rum to the military. Beer and country liquor were supplied...
Baleshwar Dayal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1971
Reported in: AIR1970All12
H.N. Seth, J. 1. A Division Bench of this Court has referred two questions of law for consideration by a Full Bench. Facts leading to the reference are that on 29-1-1965. Ram Kishan and Babu Ram, the two landlords, obtained permission under Section 3 of the U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. Act III of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act, from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Meerut, for filing a suit for ejectment against their tenant Baleshwar Dayal. The tenant went up in revision before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, who by his order dated July 22, 1965 dismissed the revision application and upheld the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. On 3rd August 1965, the tenant filed an application in revision under Section 7-F of the Act, before the State Government. The State Government, by its order dated 6th August, 1965 directed that the operation of the permission granted, under Section 3 of the Act, by the Additional Commissioner. Meerut...
Masood Ahmad Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All544
V.G. Oak, C.J. 1. This Special Appeal arises out of proceedings under the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The dispute relates to a certain shop at Kanpur. Rama Shankar Agarwal, respondent No. 3, is the proprietor of the shop. At one time one Arif Husain occupied the shop as Rama Shankar's tenant. In July 1967 he transferred his business and goodwill in favour of Masood Ahmad, who is the appellant in this Special Appeal. Arif Husain died on 10-7-1967. Upon Arif Husain's death, the shop was occupied by Masood Ahmad. He applied for allotment of the shop in his name. On 21-10-1967 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur allotted the shop to Masood Ahmad.2. Rama Shankar Agarwal (landlord) went up in revision under Section 7-F of the Act. The revision was allowed by the State Government on 12.3.1968. The order of allotment in Masood Ahmad's favour was set aside; and the accommodation was released in favour of the landlord.3. Masood Ahmad filed a writ petition challe...
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Darshan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1213
S.D. Khare, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 12th September, 1967, passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Meerut, setting aside an order of conviction passed against Darshan Lal (respondent) Under Section 13 (1) (b) of the U. P. Roadside Land Control Act (Act 10 of 1945) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The facts leading to this appeal are simple. In the year 1965 it was noticed that Darshan Lai had constructed a building close to Delhi-Mussoorie Road between miles 38 and 39. The Delhi Mussoorie Road had been duly notified under the provisions of the Act The construction made by the respondent was within controlled area declared Under Section 3 of the Act. By an order dated 8th November. 1965. Darshan Lai was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, Darshan Lai, however, did not remove the unauthorised construction after his conviction. On being prosecuted again Under Section 13 of the Act one year later, he took the plea that the building in questio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›