Allahabad Court February 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.
Mst. Shahjahan Begum and anr. Vs. Zahirul Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All511
Satish Chandra, J.1. A learned Single Judge has referred this revision for decision by a larger Bench, because he felt that there was some conflict between the observations of the Supreme Court in Jagat Dhish Bhargava v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava : [1961]2SCR918 on the one hand and Full Bench decisions of Patna and Calcutta High Courts in State of Bihar v. Mohd. Ismail. : AIR1966Pat1 , Dungar Mal v. Rukma Kumar : AIR1970Cal443 on the other. A view similar to the one taken in the Calcutta and Patna cases was taken by a Single Judge of this Court in Har Bux Singh v. Gram Sabha, 1970 All LJ 720.2. The revision is directed against an order dismissing the appeal as barred by time. A suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed ex parte. The defendants made an application for the setting aside of the ex parte decree. This application was also dismissed on 24-2-1969. The office of the Trial Court took some time in preparing the formal order. The learned Munsif signed the formal order on 10t...
The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sri Bhola Nath Srivastava and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All460
G.C. Mathur, J.1. These three special appeals have been filed by the State Government against the judgment of a learned Single Judge allowing three writ petitions. All the three writ petitions were filed by Sri Bhola Nath Srivastava, an Advocate of this Court. By one writ petition he challenged the appointment of Sri Rishi Ram as Government Advocate; by the second he challenged the appointment of Sri Prem Shankar Gupta as Deputy Government Advocate; and by the third he challenged the appointments of Sarvsri Girdhar Malaviya, V. P. Goel, T. N. Sinha, S. V. Goswami and S. M. Tripathi as Assistant Government Advocates. The writ petitions have been allowed and the notifications appointing these law officers have been quashed on the ground that the appointments were made in violation of the provisions of Article 16(1) of the Constitution inasmuch as no advertisement or notice was issued, before making the appointments, inviting applications from eligible members of the Bar for the appointme...
Rajeshwar Mani Tripathi Vs. Sahkari Samiti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All543
K.N. Srivastava, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff arising out of the following facts: 2. The plaintiff had borrowed some money from the Sahkari Samiti, Balua Mahson. The plaintiff failed to pay the money. The Circle Officer was appointed as an Arbitrator. He decided the case against the plaintiff. The plaintiff then filed the suit on the allegation that the award by the Arbitrator was null and void on the ground that the rule of limitation was not considered as the loan on the basis of which the award was made had been taken beyond three years from the date of the award. It was also contended that the Arbitrator did not follow the procedure laid down under the Co-operative Societies Act.3. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondent on the ground that the award was valid; that the rule of limitation does not apply to awards made under the Co-operative Societies Act and that the Arbitrator gave the award in accordance with rule.4. The learned Munsif held that the loan was ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chhadami Lal JaIn Trust
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1972
Reported in: [1977]106ITR179(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Delhi Bench 'B', has in respect of the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from the properties in question covered by the deed of trust dated November 14, 1947, were exempt from income-tax under Section 4(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'2. The facts necessary for the decision of this question may now be stated. One Sri Chhadami Lal Jain, by a deed dated November 14, 1947, purported to create a trust known as 'Chhadami Lal Jain Trust'. In the preamble to the deed in question, reference is made to the necessity for building a college hostel and for maintaining an Aushadhalaya in Firozabad district, Agra. The relevant portion of the deed runs as follows :'1. That the name of this trust shall be Chhadami Lal Jain Trust. 2. That the following institutions shall be under this Trust: (a) Boarding House, (b) Dhar...
Moti Lal Chhadami Lal JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1972
Reported in: [1977]106ITR909(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. Two questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', the same being ;'(1) Whether, on a proper construction of the lease deeds dated May 3, I960, and May 5, 1962, and accompanying facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 10,000 is the income of the assessee and not that of Chhadami Lal Jain Degree College ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the income of Rs. 14,100 from properties purported to have been transferred to Seth Chhadami Lal Jain Trust was not assessable in the hands of the assessee family ?' 2. So far as the second question is concerned, the Tribunal while discussing this question placed reliance on its decision in Income-tax Appeal No. 17157 of 1963-64 and Income-tax Appeal No. 11774 of 1964-65. It did not give any separate reasons for the present assessment year for holding that the income could not be included in the assessment of the assessee. A reference in respect of certain ...
Nanku Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ498
S.D. Khare, J.1. This is an anneal directed against an order dated 31st August, 1968 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Banda convicting Nanku (appellant) under Section 302, I.P.C. for having caused the death of Ramzani and also under Section 323 I.P.C. for having caused simple hurt to Munna P.W. 1) and Kareem Bux (P.W. 9) and sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life for the offence of murder and to nine months' rigorous imprisonment for causing simple hurt. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. One more person namely Jamiluddin a brother of Nanku was also tried along with Nanku. He was however, convicted only under Section 352. I.P.C. and sentencing to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court. No appeal has been filed by Jamiluddin.3. Ramzani who lost his life was a resident of village Bhagauta-Ka Purza within police circle Atarra, district Banda. Nanku (appellant) was his close neighbor. The house in which Nanku lived had originally belonged to Kh...
Budhu Ahir and ors. Vs. Ishwar Chand Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1377
ORDERC.D. Parekh, J. 1. This revision arises out of the order dated 20th February. 1970. passed by Shri R.S. Mishra S.D.M. Ballia in proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code in the Criminal Case No. 1 of 1967 Ishwar Chand Pande and others v. Budhhoo and other P. S. Kotwali district Ballia. The magistrate declared the first party i. e. Ishwar Chand Pandp and others to be in possession of the disputed property and restrained Budhhoo and others from interfering with the possession of Ishwar Chand Pande and others till they were evicted in due course of law. The magistrate has further directed that the property in question which was under attachment be delivered to Ishwar Chand Pande and others.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 30th January. 1965 police report was made from P. S. Kotwali statins that there was apprehension of breach of peace between Ishwar Chand and others on the one hand and Budhhoo and others on the other regarding the land of village Shahp...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Babu Ram Chander Bhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR230(All)
Hari Swarup, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act: ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal, was justified in holding that there was no evidence on record at the time the assessments were completed to show that the assessee-firm had concealed its income or had furnished inaccurate particulars thereof (2) If the answer to the above question is in the negative, whether the Income-tax Officer could, at the time of levying the penalty under Section 28(1)(c) of the Act, take into account also the additional evidence brought on record after the assessments were completed ' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm which carried on business in the name of M/s. Baburam Chander Bhan. It had four partners : Baburam, Mahabir Prasad, Satya Deo and Shiv Charan Lal. It carried on the business of purchasing plain bangl...
Chunni and anr. Vs. Sullahar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All418
Satish Chandra, J. 1. A learned Single Judge of this Court felt that the decision of another Single Judge in Parmanand v. Smt. Chimmawati : AIR1955All64 requires reconsideration. He referred the case to a Division Bench. 2. The plaintiff-applicants institute ed a suit for a declaration that they are the original owners in possession of the house in dispute and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No. 1 from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession either by executing the decree granted to him under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act or through any other means or ways. Along with the plaint the plaintiffs filed an application for an ad interim injunction to restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs. The trial Court relying upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in : AIR1955All64 , held that the applicant was not entitled to an injunction and rejected it. This view was confirmed by the Civil Judge on appeal. 3. In Parmanand's case :...
Niranjan Shukla and anr. Vs. Shanker Shukla
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All556
ORDERJ.S. Trivedi, J.1. Shankar Shukla, plaintiff opposite party filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the applicants from changing the nature of the land in suit and for possession. An application for an interim injunction under Order 39, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code was also made. The trial Court granted the injunction and directed that the status quo shall be maintained. During the pendency of the injunction the defendant-applicants disobeyed the injunction. An application under Order 39, Rule 2-A as amended by this Court was then moved by the opposite party for taking action against the defendant-applicants for the disobedience of the injunction. The trial Court ordered the detention of the applicants in Civil prison for a period of 20 days. Against the order of the learned Munsif an appeal was filed by the applicants. The learned Civil Judge who heard the appeal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court, hence this revision.2. Learned Counsel for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »