Allahabad Court March 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.
Kapoor Chand and anr. Vs. Kailash Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All170
T.S. Misra, J. 1. This appeal has arisen in a suit for demolition and injunction. The plaintiff alleged that he was the owner of a pucca Haveli, which was also known as Bailkhana. The defendants were the owners of a house situate towards the east of the ahata but they did not own the western wall of their house. The wall between their house and the ahata of Musaddi Lal was owned by the latter, Musaddi Lal sold the ahata to Chater Sen on 31st August, 1945, whereupon two suits Nos. 420 and 421 of 1946 were filed for pre-emption by Benarsi Das, who was the father of the plaintiff, and by the defendant Kapoor Chand. These suits were decided in terms of a compromise as a result of which Benarsi Das became the owner of the two north faced kothas and the vacant piece of land lying to their west and Kapoor Chand became the owner of a Dukariya and the Sahan lying in front thereof as well as the northern exit. A dispute subsequently arose between Benarsi Das and Kapoor Chand and the defendants i...
Vishwa Mitra Chhadda Vs. Smt. Amrit Kaur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All408
Satish Chandra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The appellant owned an Ambassador car No. USF 3581. He was running it as a taxi between Kanpur and Lucknow, through a driver. On 11th September, 1969, this car was taking several passengers including Autar Singh from Kanpur to Lucknow. On the way It met with an accident; as a result, Autar Singh along with the driver of the vehicle, died. The legal representatives Of the deceased Autar Singh lodged a claim for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation against the appellant as the owner of the car and the Oriental Fire and General insurance Company Limited.Kanpur, as the insurer of the vehicle. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal decreed the claim for Rs. 26,400/- out of which Rs. 4,000/- were held payable by the insurance company. The appellant was made liable to pay the rest. Aggrieved, the owner of the vehicle has come to this Court in appeal.2. The Tribunal found that Autar Singh, the predecessor-...
Ram Lal Poddar Vs. the Tahsildar, Nanpara, District Bahraich
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All548
K.B. Srivastava, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus and of certiorari quashing certain documents and processes. The petition arises out of the following facts:--2. The petitioner Ram Lal Poddar alleges that he made an application in the year 1949 for supply of some materials on credit for the construction of a masonry well for purposes of irrigation, and on the basis of that application the Agriculture Department supplied some materials in instalments but not all the materials indented by him. The Agriculture Department assessed the price of the material supplied at Rs. 420.80. He received a citation in the year 1963 for the payment of the assessed price. Subsequently, his moveables of the value of Rs. 1500/- were attached and entrusted in the Supurdgi of one Suraj Lal as custodian and the attached goods were not returned to him and nothing was heard about the recovery processes till the close of the year 1968...
Raja Sukhnandan Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All498
H. Swarup, J.1. A notice under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued by the District Magistrate, Varanasi to the petitioner Raja for taking action against him under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act.2. The petitioner has challenged the notice, inter alia, on the ground that the provisions of Section 3 (3) of the Act are unconstitutional, ultra vires and void. He has also challenged the notice on merits. The proceedings initiated the notice are still pending before the District Magistrate and no final order has yet been passed.3. Section 2 (b) of the Act gives the definition of a Goonda. According to Section 2 (b):' 'Goonda' means a person who: (i) either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offences punishable under Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1898 (Act V of 1898) or (ii) has been convicted under...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Vs. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mill ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1972
Reported in: [1973]89ITR304(All)
Pathak, J.1. The following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee can be said to have complied with the provisions of proviso (b) to Section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and was, therefore, entitled to allowance of development rebate on the plant and machinery installed after January 1, 1958 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 3,000 towards the fees of a lawyer for drafting a special resolution and making amendments to the articles of association was an admissible expenditure within the meaning of Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ' 2. The assessee is a public limited company. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1959-60, for which the relevant previous year ended on April 30, 1958, the assessee claimed development rebate under Section 10(2)(vib)of the Indian Income-tax Ac, ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Jag Mohan Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1972
Reported in: [1972]29STC663(All)
R.S. Pathak, J. 1. I have carefully considered the matter. The submissions made by the learned counsel before us disclose no reasonable basis for changing the view I took earlier in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sugan Chand 1970 A.L.J. 895. I agree with the answer proposed by my brother Hari Swarup to the questions formulated in the different, references, and also agree that the writ petition should be dismissed. The parties should bear their own costs in each case.R.L. Gulati, J.2. In this case an important and difficult question arises under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The question is whether Section 21 or (1) Section 7(3) or both apply for making an assessment where a dealer fails to file a return of his turnover within the prescribed time.3. It is necessary to notice a few relevant provisions of the Act. Section 3 is the charging section under which every dealer has to pay, for each assessment year, tax at the rate specified therein on his turnover of such year. Machinery for assessment...
Rajendra Nath Tewari Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All417
ORDERG.C. Mathur, J. 1. The petitioner filed a suit under Section 202 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against respondent No 4. This suit was decreed by the trial court on June 13. 1960. An appeal filed against the decree of the trial court was dismissed by the first appellate court on September 13. 1960. A second appeal filed by respondent No. 4 was dismissed by the Board of Revenue under Order XLI. Rule 11, Civil P. C. on April 11. 1961. Thereafter on March 13, 1962 the petitioner filed an application for execution of the decree. The executing court dismissed the application as time barred. An appeal against the judgment and order of the executing court was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner and a second appeal was dismissed by the Board of Revenue, Hence this writ petition. 2. The limitation for execution of such a decree is provided for in Item 53 of Appendix III to the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. This item provides a period of...
Chhotey Lal and ors. Vs. Jhandey Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All424
Satish Chandra, J. 1. A Division Bench has referred the Second Appeal to a Full Bench to resolve the conflict of opinion in Mahabir Singh v. Bhagwanti, 14 All LJ 278 : (AIR 1916 All 111) and Ram Singh v. Baldeo Prasad : AIR1932All643 .2. This is a defendant's appeal. It arises out of a suit for partition of a house and a tenancy holding. The plaintiff set up the following pedigree:-- DURGU ___________________|__________________ | | | Munni Chhiddu Chhangey Jhandey Lal | | (Plaintiff) | Mst. Kaushalya | (Widow) ______________________|__________________________ | | | Mst. Rajo Chhotey Lal Ram Singh (Widow) (Defendant) (Defendant (Defendant No. 3) No. 1) No. 2)Munni died on 17-11-1918, leaving a son Jhandey Lal, the plaintiff-respondent. Chhangey died on 10-4-1925. His widow, Smt. Kaushalya died in 1932. Chhiddu died during the pendency of the suit, leaving a widow, Smt. Rajo and two sons, who are defendants-appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3.3. The plaintiffs case was that the house as well as t...
Triambak Pati Tripathi Vs. the Board of High School and Intermediate E ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All1; (1972)IILLJ451All
H.N. Seth, J.1. The petitioner Triyambakpati Tripathi was a candidate for the High School Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P., (hereinafter referred to as the Board) held in the year 1971. He appeared in that examination as a regular student of Belpur Higher Secondary School from the Higher Secondary School Kempiarganj Centre. On receipt of a complaint that there was masa copying at that Centre, the examiners concerned were alerted and were required to evaluate the answer books carefully and to report if there was any indication of use of unfair means by the candidates appearing at that Centre. The examiner of Science Second Paper reported that he suspected use of unfair means by a number of candidates in answering question No. 2 of that paper. The report of the examiner was endorsed also by the Head Examiner concerned. Thereupon the Examinations Committee of the Board got the answer books of the candidates appearing at that centre examined by a sc...
Gokalchand Sri Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All330
ORDERK.N. Srivastava, J.1. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff, arising out of the following facts:2. The plaintiff is a registered final carrying on wholesale business in fruits at Meerut. This firm booked a number of consignments on two different dates, namely, 6-7-1961 and 17-7-1961, from Meerut to Bombay. These consignments reached their destination in damaged condition. According to the plaintiff, the damage was caused due to carelessness and negligence of the railway employees. The plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of Rupees 3984.68 Paisa as damages, after serving notices under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80, C. P. C.3. The suit was contested on various grounds and, inter alia, it was pleaded that there was no negligence and carelessness on the part of the railway employees, and that the damage was caused due to the defective packing of the mangoes which were consigned from Meerut to Bombay.4. The trial court decreed the suit for the reco...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »