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.
Caltex (India) Ltd. Vs. Kejriwal and Sons and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All275
S. Malik, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment dated 7-12-1971 of the 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi, dismissing the plaintiff's appeal and confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs.2. The relevant facts are that defendant-respondent No. 2 Eishwa Nath Kejriwal executed the lease (Ex. 1) in favour of the plaintiff, Caltex (India) Ltd., in respect of Plot No. 101/2 situate in village Shujavad, Pargana Ralhupur, Tehsil Chandauli, District Varanasi and buildings standing thereon for a period of ten years on a monthly rent of Rs. 220/- with an option to have the lease renewed for a further period of ten years for setting up a service station to deal in petrol, diesel and petroleum products manufactured by the plaintiff-company. The plaintiff spent money on the land and installed petrol and diesel pumps etc. The plaintiff subsequently on 15-5-1965 entered into an agreement with the partnership firm Kejriwal and S...
Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR236(All)
Hari Swarup, J. 1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee, the Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. 2. A return of income was filed by the assessee, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, in Form A under Rule 19 on June 20, 1961, showing a loss of Rs. 3,94,196. This return was not accompanied by the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account as the same were not ready. Later on, on August 26, 1962, the profit and loss accounts and the balance-sheet were submitted. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return on October 30, 1962. Although it was also in Form A under Rule 19 of the old Act, the return was complete otherwise. The Income-tax Officer had issued a notice under Section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the first return was filed in compliance thereof. After the revised return was filed by the assessee the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to the assessee under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Ac...
Jagdish Saran Vs. Brij Raj Kishore and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All313
Trivedi, J.1. Defendant-respondent No. 2 Mohammad Husain was the owner of two shops. On 31-10-1955 he sold them to Jagdish Saran, appellant, The plaintiff-respondent. Brij Raj Kishore, who owned an adjoining shop filed the suit for pre-emption of the sale of the two shops on the basis of customary right of pre-emption on the grounds that the water of the roofs of the plaintiff's house and shop used to flow through the same spout along with the water of the shops sold, and that the beams of the plaintiff's shop rested on the wall intervening between the plaintiff's shop and the shops sold. He alleged that he approached the defendant Jagdish Saran also for executing the sale deed of the two shops in his favour, but he paid no heed, hence the suit for pre-emption.2. The defendant-appellant contested the suit on numerous grounds including the ground that the custom relating to the right of pre-emption was ultra vires the Constitution. The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit and the de...
Prem Chand Vs. Onkar Dutt Sharma and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All415
K.B. Asthana, J. 1. This is a plaintiff landlords' appeal from the decree of the dismissal of his suit for eviction of the defendant-tenant from certain accommodation and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. 2. The accommodation in suit was owned by Dhruv Prasad and Kailash Prasad whose tenant the defendant was. By a sale deed executed on 21-8-1963 Dhruv Prasad and Kailash Prasad transferred the accommodation to the plaintiff. By another document executed on the same date the actionable claim to recover all the arrears of rent due from 18-5-1960 upto date was also transferred to the plaintiff. Then on 21-11-1963 the plaintiff sent a notice through a lawyer to the defendant intimating that the plaintiff had become the landlord by virtue of the transfer dated 21-8-1963 from the previous landlord who had also sold the right to recover the arrears of rent due and demanded the payment of the arrears of rent with effect from 18-5-1960 upto 21-11-1963 within one month and service of t...
MasiuddIn NaimuddIn Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All510
ORDERS.N. Dwivedi, J.1. The petitioner, Masiuddin, held a licence for possessing a D.B. B.L. gun. It was granted to him in 1967. It was granted by the District Magistrate, Allahabad. Thereafter he purchased one D.B.B.L. gun No. A/4, 4517 (Indian). On September 28, 1969 the District Magistrate, Allahabad served a notice on him under the Arms Act, 1959. The notice directed him to surrender the licence and the gun to the Station Officer, Nawabganj. It also directed him to show cause why his gun licence should not be cancelled. Meanwhile, the District Magistrate suspended the licence.2. The petitioner showed cause. Thereafter by his order, dated 17th July, 1969, the District Magistrate cancelled the licence. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order. The Commissioner, Allahabad, dismissed the appeal.3. Counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. N. Singh has questioned the validity ofthe aforesaid orders on two grounds. One, the petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity of showing cau...
The Sales Tax Officer, Sector V, Kanpur Vs. Prime Products Ltd., Kanpu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All332
N.D. Ojha, J.1. This petition has been filed by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector V, Kanpur, tinder Article 133(1)(a) and (c) of the Constitution of India for a certificate to file an appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court dated November 17, 1970 allowing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3079 of 1970.2. The respondent No. 1 M/s. Prime Products Ltd., Kanpur, which is a private limited company deals in manufacture and supply of sole leather tanned by it as also supply of military boots to the Military Department. The sales tax on leather goods upto the year 1961 was leviable at the rate of 2 paise per rupee, but by a notification dated April 5, 1961 the said rate was raised to 3 paise per rupee. For the year 1963-64 the respondent No.1 was assessed to sales tax at the rate of2 paise per rupee. In 1964-65 it was assessed to a sales tax at the rate of 3 paise per rupee. Against this assessment for the year 1964-65 the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal wherein it succeeded a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›