Allahabad Court August 1971 Judgments
Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property, U.P., Lucknow and ors. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All141
Gopi Nath, J.1. These two Special Appeals have been filed against an order of a learned Single Judge, dated 12-11-1965, allowing a Writ Petition. The Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property and the Assistant Custodian are the appellants in Special Appeal No. 419 of 1966 and Prasadi Singh and others are the appellants in Special Appeal 725 of 1965. These appellants The Writ Petn. was filed by Ali Abbas and four others. They challenged an auction sale held by the Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property. The auction was held in respect of the one half share interest of one Mohammed Zaki in the plots auctioned.2. Mohammad Razi and Moham-mad Zaki were brothers, Mohammad Zaki migrated to Pakistan. His interest in the plots in dispute was declared evacuee property and vested in the Custodian. The Custodian decided to dispose of the property. Mohammad Zaki's interest in the property, i. e. his half share in a number of plots, was accordingly auctioned and sold to Prasadi Singh and others f...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Khanjan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1971
Reported in: [1973]89ITR120(All)
S.N. Verma, C.J. 1. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment of a learned single judge of this court in Writ Petition No. 2135 of 1959. 2. There was a firm, Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram, which consisted of six partners who fell into two groups; one group consisted of Khanjan Lal, Lalloo Ram, Dwarka Prasad and Ram Lal and the other group consisted of Sewak Ram and Jagrani. We are concerned with the payment of income-tax by the partners of the firm for the year 1948-49. The total tax liability of the firm was Rs. 68,709-4-0. The liability of the two partners of the second group was Rs. 17,177-6-0. The position in law, however, is that the tax was realisable from all the partners jointly and severally. The Income-tax Officer, appellant No. 1, wrote a letter No. A. R. No. 27-K-STP dated February 24, 1953, to Khanjan Lal, the first petitioner in the writ petition, which reads as follows : ' As the firm, M/s. Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram has since been dissolved, its partners are jointly an...
Tag this Judgment!Padam Lal Bhatia Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow (Cam ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All35
ORDERR.B. Misra, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It arises out of a consolidation matter.2. The dispute between the parties relates to certain plots. All the plots in dispute are contiguous and constitute one whole with an area of 6 bighas, 6 biswas and 14 dhurs. They were admittedly owned by Smt. Dulahin Manik Rajkumari, Respondent No. 5. It appears that by a deed dated 15th November, 1949 Padam Lal Bhatia, the petitioner, obtained possession over the land in dispute for a period of nine years commencing from 1357F. to 1365F. This deed was termed as a Theka. The main stipulations in the deed were: (i) the Thekedar had the right to utilize the fruits of the grove; (ii) he could plant new trees at the expense of the lessor in place of fallen or dried up trees only with the permission of the lessor, and (iii) he could grow vegetables on the vacant land and had generally to look after the grove and the compound. The Thekedar under the deed, was required to p...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dass Sukhi Ram Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All114
ORDERB.N. Lokur, J.1. The Executive Engineer (Tube Wells) proposed to widen a gul between inter alia plots Nos. 900 and 925 in village Pheguna so that the gul might carry a larger volume of water from the tube well to irrigate the outlying lands; he accordingly proposed that a strip of land on both sides of the gul be requisitioned from the various plots lying on the two sides of the gul. On his application for requisition, the Tahsildar, who is the Requisitioning Authority under the U. P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), invited objections if any from the various land-holders adjoining the gul. The petitioner who holds plots Nos. 900 and 925 and other landholders filed objections and the Requisitioning Authority, after hearing them and after a spot inspection of the gul was of the opinion that the requisition of the strips of land from the plots lying on the two sides was beneficial to the cultivators of the outlying land and...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Shanker Prem Prakash Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC287(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. In compliance with this court's order dated 6th January, 1970, passed under Section 11(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Gorakhpur, has submitted this statement of the case and has referred for the decision of this court the following two questions of law :(1) Whether the Notification No. S.T. 2934/X-902(7)-56 dated 1st August, 1958, was a valid notification to begin with and in case it was not whether it has been validated by Act No. 15 of 1964?(2) In either case, what would be the proper rate of tax on yarn for the year 1958-59 2. It may be stated here that in question No. (1) reference to Act No. 15 of 1964 appears to be a clerical mistake. It has been admitted by the learned counsel of the two sides that it was Act No. 14 of 1964 to which the reference was meant. Hence we shall modify question No. (1) so as to read Act No. 14 in place of Act No. 15 of 1964.3. The assessee is a dealer in cotton yarn. The assessment year in d...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC342(All)
R.L. Dwivedi, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, the Judge (Revisions) has referred to this court this question :Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the notice of demand sent along with the assessment order was a valid notice of demand and that the letter of 14/15th July, 1961, sent after the dismissal of the writ petition was a mere reminder ?2. The assessee, a manufacturer of and dealer in cloth and yarn, was assessed to tax for the assessment year 1956-57. The amount of tax assessed is Rs. 18,46,966.79. It had paid a sum of Rs. 6,96,000 and odd. This left an outstanding of Rs. 11,65,900.55. It filed a writ petition against the order of assessment in this court. The petition challenged the notification of the State Government imposing sales tax on the sale of cloth and yarn at the rate of one anna per rupee. The petition was admitted. The court granted an interim order that no amount in excess of three pies per rupee (the rate admitted by the...
Tag this Judgment!iqbal Hasan and ors. Vs. the Sunni Central Board and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All123
D.D. Seth, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs arising out of a suit for possession of a Dargah known as Dargah Khawaja Karak situate in a village near Kara. The plaintiffs also sought a declaration that they are the lawful Khadim mutwallis of that Dargah.2. The plaintiff's case was that Hazrat Khawaja Karak was a well known Sunni Muslim saint and that his Dargah is visited by pilgrims throughout the year and that one Babu Shah Qalandar, who was the predecessor of the plaintiffs, was the Khadim of the Dargah, and that after Babu Shah Qalandar his descendants held the office of khadim and had been managing the affairs of the Dargah Paragraph No. 3 of the plaint may be reproduced because the learned counsel for the appellants have based their main contention on that paragraph. Paragraph No. 3 of the plaint reads as follows:--'That ever since the time of the aforesaid Babu Shah Qalandar the plaintiffs and before them their predecessorshaving held the office of Kha-lifa and Khadims h...
Tag this Judgment!New Swadeshi Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Tax Officer Zila Parishad, Allahabad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All121
Dwivedi, J. 1. The petitioner, theNew Swadeshi Sugar Mills Ltd., has filed this petition against the assessment of tax on circumstances and property on it. The petitioner is a public limited company.2. On the last hearing counsel for the petitioner pressed this point: no tax on circumstances and property can be assessed on a company. In support of his argument he relied on Zilla Parishad Muzaffarnagar v. Baboo Ram, 1970 All LJ 1224. It is the decision of a learned single Judge. He has held that the aforesaid tax cannot be assessed on a company. As we found it difficult to share the view of the learned Judge, we adjourned the hearing of the case in order to enable counsel to be ready for a full fledged argument. We have now heard counsel for the petitioner. Today he has advanced a second point for our consideration. So we are now required to consider two points: (1) whether a company is a person within the meaning of the Zilla Parishad Act and the District Boards Act; (2) Whether tax on...
Tag this Judgment!Kamta and anr. Vs. Gaya Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All143
ORDERK.B. Asthana, J. 1. Having heard the learned counsel for the defendant-applicants, I do not think in the exercise of my revisional jurisdiction I should interfere with the order of the Court below. In fact the order of the Court below is merely an order of correction of a previous order but at the same time it is true that by the terms of the impugned order the suit has been allowed to be withdrawn at the instance of plaintiff, under Order 23, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. The argument, however, raised on behalf of the applicants was that the defendants having secured a vested right, under the decree of dismissal of the suit by the trial court, the appellate court ought not to have given permission to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit as that would defeat the right of the defendants which enured to their benefit under the decree of dismissal of the suit. Reference was made to a learned Single Judge's decision of this Court in the case of Kedarnath v. Chandra Kiran, AIR 1...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Shanker Srivastava Vs. S.N. Misra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All144
A.K. Kirty, J. 1. Both the appeals arise out of the same execution proceedings. Appeal No. 1556 of 1964 has been filed by the judgment-debtor and the other connected Appeal has been filed by the decree-holder. 2. Suit No. 520 of 1959 was filed by the decree-holder against the judgment-debtor for recovery of arrears of rent for the period January 1955, to December, 1957. This suit was decreed on 21-12-1960. When the decree was put into execution the judgment-debtor raised several objections. The principal objection was that no part of the decree was executable because the arrears of rent in respect of which the suit was filed and decree obtained were debts provable under Section 34 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The judgment-debtor pleaded that he had made an application on 19-3-1957 for being adjudged an insolvent. The Insolvency court by an order dated 18th October, 1957 adjudged the judgment-debtor to be an insolvent He was subsequently discharged by an order dated 4-5-1962. On th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »