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.
Suraj Prasad Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR417(All)
Pathak, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court.' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee, his wife and minor daughter did not constitute a Hindu undivided family in law ?'2. The assessee is an individual. For the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, the Wealth-tax Officer determined the total wealth of the assessee. The assessee contended that some of the assets included in the wealth of the assessee did not belong to him but to the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his wife and minor daughter. The plea being rejected by the Income-tax Officer, the asssessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but his appeal was dismissed. The assessee appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and that appeal was dismissed.3. It seems to us that the question referred is now concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in N. V, Narendra...
Smt. Katki Devi Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Alias Budhai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1095
ORDERB.D. Gupta, J.1. This is a revision on behalf of the complainant against an order of a learned Sessions Judge dated 20-1-1971 whereby he took the view that the charge under Section 120B, IPC could not be taken cognizance of and deciding to proceed with the trial only in so far as it related to the charge punishable under Section 465, IPC2. The opposite parties to this revision were committed to the Court of Session for being tried for offences punishable under Sections 465 and 120B, Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the case before the Sessions Judge, an application was moved on behalf of the opposite parties praying that the trial of the applicants on the charges on which they had been committed to the Court of Session was barred by the provisions contained in Section 196-A, Criminal Procedure Code and that, therefore, charges against the applicants be quashed. The learned Sessions Judge took the view that sanction of the State Government was necessary to enable him to tr...
Brahma Dutt Vs. Paripurna Nand Family and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All340
ORDERB.N. Lokur, J.1. Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 as well as Rajmata Kamalendumati Shah and Lokendra Dutt Saklani filed nomination papers for the mid-term general elections to the Lok Sabha from Tehri Garh-wal Constituency (hereinafter referred to as 'the Constituency') held in February/ March, 1971, Rajmata Kamalendumati Shah and Lokendra Dutt Saklani withdrew their candidature before the date of withdrawal and respondents Nos. 1 to 6 alone contested the election. Respondent No. 1 was returned elected and the petitioner, a voter in the Constituency, has challenged his election. He has also prayed for a declaration that respondent No. 2 is duly elected.2. It may be mentioned that respondent No. 1 is the proprietor of the newspaper Himani, published at Dehra Dun, which is outside the Constituency, and respondent No. 2 is the Ruler of Tehri.3. The petition is resisted by respondent No. 1, while respondent No. 2 has supported the petition. Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 remained absent though duly s...
Jagannath Kapoor and anr. Vs. Premier Credit and Instalment Corporatio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All49
ORDERGyanendra Kumar, J. 1. This is a revision by the defendants against the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby they upheld the award dated 19-2-1965, with a modification relating to future interest 2. The admitted or proved facts are that the parties entered into a hire-purchaseagreement dated 14-11-1962 (paper No. Kha-11) in respect of new Dodge motor truck, 1962 model, owned by the plaintiff opposite parties. The hire-purchase agreement was for Rs. 27,612/-, which the de-fendants were to pay to the plaintiffs in 23 monthly instalments. Clauses 16 (b) and (c) of the agreement that be reproduced below with advantage: '16. (b) All disputes, differences or claims arising out of and in connection with this agreement shall 'be referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Mangal Sen Tandon. Chowk, Lucknow or his nominee or in event of their refusal Shri Ram Narain Mehrotra at Lucknow under the provision of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1940 or any statutory modifications thereof....
Mohammadoo Khan Vs. Ghulam Rasul
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All441
N.D. Ojha, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from a portion of house No. 99/335, Kan-ghi Mohal, Kanpur and for recovery of Rs. 83/- as arrears of rent and Rs. 7.50 Paise as mesne profits. 2. The suit was filed on the allegation that the plaintiff was the landlord of the house aforesaid, that the defendant was his tenant in a portion of the said house on the ground floor at a monthly rent of Rs. 3.75 P. and that he had not paid rent from August 24, 1961 to May 24, 1963 in spite of the notice of demand dated June 5, 1963 having been served upon him on June 12, 1963. The appellant contested the suit inter alia on the allegations that the notice of demand had not been served upon him, that he had already deposited the rent claimed in proceedings under Section 7-C of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as Section 7-C) on July 11, 1963 and that he was not a defaulter in the payment of rent. The trial Court came ...
Prakash Trading Company Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1972
Reported in: [1972]30STC345(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow, the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Agra, has submitted a statement of the case with the following question of law for our opinion :Whether under the circumstances of the case purchases of dal worth Rs. 3,13,324 made by the assessee treated as first purchases in the hands of the assessee and thus assessment on the above purchases on the assessee is valid 2. The assessee is a dealer in foodgrains, oil-seeds and dal. During the assessment year 1965-66, it claimed exemption from purchase tax on the turnover of purchases of dal worth Rs. 3,13,324 on the ground that the dal having been purchased from the dal mills within U.P., the assessee was not the first purchaser. This contention of the assessee has been upheld by the revising authority on the view that the processed dal purchased by the assessee is not a different commodity from the whole dal purchased by the dal mills and, as such, the dal mills would...
Amar Singh and ors. Vs. Bishwanath Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All353
K.N. Srivastava, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors, arising out of an objection under Section 47, C.P.C.1A. A number of objections were taken by the judgment-debtors before the executing court. The only objection which was pressed in this appeal was that, as provided under Order XXI, Rule 84, C.P.C. the decree-holder had to deposit 25 per cent of the purchase money at the fall ofthe hammer and as no such deposit was made by the decree-holder, the sale was invalid.2. Order XXI, Rule 84 (2) lays down that in case of a decree-holder who is entitled to set off of the purchase money under Rule 72, the Court may dispense with the requirements of Order XXI, Rule 84 (1).3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that in order to apply Sub-rule (2) of Rule 84 of Order XXI, it was necessary that the decree-holder should have obtained permission of the executing court that he should be exempted from depositing 25 per cent of the purchase money on the fall of the hammer. In suppo...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Lucknow Co-operative Milk Supply Union Ltd ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC165(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. These references under Section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act have been made at the instance of the Commissioner, Sides Tax, Lucknow, on the following question of law :Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, 'milk shake' sold by the aforesaid company is an unclassified item which was liable to tax in the assessment year 19G3-64 at 2 per cent, under Section 3 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act and the Additional Revising Authority has erred in law in holding it to be 'milk' exempt from tax under Notification No. ST-3506/X dated 10th May, 1956, issued under Section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act 2. The assessee, Lucknow Co-operative Milk Supply Union Limited, runs a restaurant within the campus of the Lucknow University and in that restaurant, one of the articles sold to the customers is milk shake. The assessee claimed exemption from sales tax on the turnover of milk shake under Notification No. ST-3506/X dated 10th May, 1956. This notification has been issued under Se...
Sales Tax Commissioner Vs. Lachman Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC372(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow, and relates to the assessment year 1962-63. The connected cases are also references relating to assessment years 1963-64 arid 1964-65.2. The assessee, Lachman Singh, is a dealer in chaff-cutters and along with the chaff-cutters he sells oil-cans and steel files. During the three assessment years in question, a dispute arose between him and the sales tax department with regard to the taxability of the turnover of oil-cans and files. The assessee claimed that the turnover of oil-cans and files was exempt from tax as they were sold as accessories of chaff-cutters. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept this contention and treated these two articles as unclassified goods and taxed their turnover under Section 3. The assessee went up in appeal, but did not succeed. He then applied in revision and the revising authority has accepted the assessee's...
Commissioner of Expenditure-tax Vs. Laxmipat Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR459(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 25(1) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Commissioner of Expenditure-tax, U.P., Lucknow.2. The reference arises out of assessments under the Expenditure-tax Act for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The assessee, Laxmipat Singhania, was at the material time a financial adviser to a limited company known as the J. K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. On April 10, 1956, that company passed a resolution that the assessee should be allowed free furnished residential accommodation in its house known as J. K. House, at 12, Alipur Road, Calcutta. The assessee was not to receive any other remuneration. While making the assessment under the Expenditure-tax Act, for the two years in question, the Expenditure-tax Officer included in the total expenditure of the assessee the following two items amongst others.1. Rs. 19,440, being the annual letting value of rent-free residence provided to the assessee by the J. K. Jute Mills Compa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »