Allahabad Court November 1972 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.
Sri Ravindra Kumar Vs. Sri Ram Chand Kohli and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All247
Satish Chandra, J.1. It appears that one Chaddha was the tenant of the shop in dispute. He abandoned it in 1966, Thereafter the respondents, namely, Ram Chand Kohli and Ganga Sagar entered into its possession under an agreement with the landlord and on payment of rent. They, however, did not obtain an order of allotment in respect of this shop from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. In 1969, the appellants applied for the allotment of this shop. After hearing the respondents, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order of allotment in favour of the appellant. Aggrieved, the respondents filed a revision before the State Government which was, however, dismissed. The respondents then filed a writ petition in this Court. A learned Single Judge held that in law the accommodation could not be deemed to be vacant. There was hence no jurisdiction to pass an order of allotment. In the next place it was held that an order of allotment could validly be passed only after the responde...
Sri Govind Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All464
N.D. Ojha, J.1. The village where the land in dispute is situated was brought under consolidation operations and in the basic year the appellant was recorded as the tenure-holder. An objection was filed on behalf of the respondents 5 and 6 claiming to be co-tenure-holders having a one-third share. It appears that Tuley respondent No. 5 was a minor and Babu respondent No. 6 as elder brother was acting as his guardian. After the evidence was recorded Babu made an offer that if the appellant could take special oath that his claim was incorrect Babu would be out of Court. The offer was accepted by the appellant and he took special oath reiving upon which the Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection of respondents 5 and 6.Tuley respondent No. 5 thereupon filed an appeal through his mother and contended that Babu not being his natural guardian was not authorised to offer special oath on his behalf and the objection in so far as it related to him could not be dismissed on the basis of th...
Smt. Ram Patti Devi and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All288
ORDERR.L. Gulati, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The dispute relates to an agricultural land measuring about 7 bighas comprised in various plots as given in Para 1 of the writ petition. The petitioners allege that they have purchased from one Shiv Pujan his 1/4th share in the land in dispute. Shiv Pujan and his uncle Purshotam together owned one-half share of which one-fourth share belonged to Shiv Pujan and the other one-fourth to Purshotam. The land was recorded in the name of Purshotam only. Purshotam deposited ten times of the land revenue and acquired Bhumidhari Sanad. He sold the entire share to Sarju Dubey on August 6, 1966. Thereafter Shiv Pujan sold his one-fourth share to the petitioners. The petitioners filed a suit under Sec-lien 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for a declaration that they had acquired one-fourth share in the land in dispute. The suit was decreed by the trial court as well as by the first appell...
Suraj Pal Singh Vs. Sri Gharam Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All466
Asthana, J.1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal from a concurrent decree of dismissal of his suit for demolition of a wall. Alleging that the defendants have constructed a wall on the village path-way thereby obstructing it, the plaintiff's user of it as of right has been infringed a decree for demolition of the wall and for injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff from exercising his right of way over the disputed land was sought. The defence was a denial of the (plaintiff's allegations. It was pleaded that the defendants had raised the wall on the old foundations of their Gher and no public pathway ever existed on the land in dispute. It appears that there was a hint in the plaint of some kind of prescriptive right of easement founded on a user of the land in dispute as a pathway but in the trial itself what was sought to be established was that the land in dispute over which the wall had been constructed by the defendant was a village pathway. The plaint...
The State Vs. Jati Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1208
Yashoda Nandan, J.1. These are five connected revisions in which a common question of law has been raised. C. D. Parekh. J. before whom they came up for hearing was of the opinion that the question of law arising for consideration in these revisions merited consideration by a larger Bench and as a result of the reference made by him. these cases are before us. We are disposing them of by a common judgment.2. The relevant facts giving rise to these revisions are that one M. A. Qidwai was being prosecuted in five different cases before the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Dehradun, for an offence punishable under Section 420/468, IPC On the 3rd September, 1968. the Public Prosecutor made an application before the learned Magistrate praying that enquiry proceedings for commitment of the accused be conducted ,in all the five cases. The learned Magistrate rejected the application and embarked on the trial of the accused. On the 14th September. 1968. charges were framed agai...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Ram Kumar Nand Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC321(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act.2. The assessee is a dealer in kirana goods. It was assessed to tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act on an estimated turnover of Rs. 16,00,000.00 for the assessment year 1966-67. One of the commodities, the turnover of which is included in the assessed turnover, is coconuts. The assessee' claimed that coconuts are 'oil-seeds' and under Section 3-AA its turnover is liable to tax at the rate of 2 per cent. The Sales Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), on appeal, have held that coconuts are dry fruits and its turnover is assessable at the rate of 3 per cent. The Judge (Revisions) has agreed with the contention of the assessee and has held that coconuts are 'oil-seeds'. The Commissioner of Sales Tax is aggrieved and at his instance the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Lucknow, has made this reference on the following question :Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, coconut is an o...
Engineering Traders Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC456(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a dealer in water pumping sets. It has been urged by the petitioners that these pumping sets are agricultural implements and, as such, are liable to tax under the U. P. Sales Tax Act at 2 per cent. The sales tax department, on the other hand, treats these pumping sets as machinery and has taxed their turnover at 6 per cent. In Delta Engineering Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1963] 14 S.T.C. 515, a Division Bench of this court has held that centrifugal pumps fixed in tube-wells are not agricultural implements. Another Division Bench in Chandra Metal Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax Sales Tax Reference No. 273 of 1963 decided on 23rd December, 1965 has held that pumping sets are not agricultural implements. The Division Bench, before whom this petition came up for hearing, thought that the aforesaid two decisions of this court might require reconsideration and hence referred the case to a lar...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ad-hoc Claims Commissioner and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All342
Satish Chandra, J.1. This writ petition has come before this Bench on a reference by Hon. Kirty, J. The learned Judge felt that the view taken in three single Judge decisions cited before him on the question of law raised in this writ petition required reconsideration.2. On the night between the 20th and 21st June, 1969, 6-Down Allahabad-Gorakhpur Express train met with an accident between Jakhanian and Dulahpur railway stations. Several persons died and many others received injuries at the accident. Nand Lal, respondent No. 2 was one of the injured persons. On 11th September, 1969, Nand Lal respondent filed an application before the Claims Commissioner, Varanasi, respondent No. 1, for payment of compensation. The Claims Commissioner on 18th February, 1970, allowed the claim in part. He awarded Rs. 7,353/- in all. Of this amount, Rs. 2,100/- was compensation for 15 per cent, partial permanent disability; Rs. 1,387/- for the loss of earnings for 3 months and 21 days during which the cla...
Ganesh Vs. Sri Ram Lalaji Mahraj Birajman Mandir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All116
Kirty, J. 1. These two applications having been referred to a Full Bench by the learned Acting Chief Justice by an order dated 28-7-1972 have come up before us. Application No. 3303 of 1970 was filed on 14-5-1970 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The other application filed on 23-3-1969 is under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before the learned Acting Chief Justice a contention was raised that Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable. In support of this contention reliance was placed on Shujaatmand Khan v. Govind Behari : AIR1934All100 , On behalf of the applicant, however, reliance was placed on Ruhulghane v. B. Uma Shankar, (AIR 1944 Oudh 5). In view of the apparent conflict between the decisions in these two cases reference to a Full Bench was made by the learned Acting Chief Justice. 2. Suit No. 254 of 1952 was instituted by the applicant against Ram Lal, Ganesh and Smt. Saraswati, inter alia, for possession of a ...
Ramji Mehrotra Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR470(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, referred to us the followingquestion of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee's status was correctly taken as that of an 'individual' ?'2. Shri Ramji Mehrotra, the assessee, was a member of a Hindu undivided family along with his father, mother, a brother and an uncle and aunt and four cousins. In 1951, there was a partial partition in the family at which a sum of five lakhs of rupees was divided between some of the members of the family. In 1953 another partial partition took place in the family, with the result that the assessee became separated from all the other members of the family. He was a bachelor. He became the exclusive owner of the properties allotted to him at the partition. For the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee claimed in the return filed by him that his status was that of a Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Of...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »