Allahabad Court April 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.
Rajendra Singh Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All37
ORDERC.S.P. Singh, J.1. The petitioner is a forest contractor and owns his industry at Bareilly. In parts of this province Borang trees grow sporadically mixed up with other species of trees. The State Government was not aware of its utility for the manufacture of pencils and slat and for a number of years thesetrees used to be sold along with other species of trees. But, when this fact came to the knowledge of the State Government, it decided to allot available Borang trees to bona fide registered pencil and slat manufacturers, instead of selling the trees by public auction. With the growth of the pencil industry in the State a shortage of Borang wood set in, and as the pencil and slat manufacturers were at issue as to the Dumber of trees to be allotted to them, the Government decided to auction the Borang trees. This decision was taken by a letter issued by the Chief Conservator of Forest on the 28th August, 1972 (Annexure 'A' to the petition). The letter, however, confined the aucti...
State of U.P. Vs. Manmohan Nauitayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1428
K.N. Seth, J.1. The State of U. P. has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Meerut setting aside in appeal the order of conviction recorded by the City Magistrate against the present respondent under Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhisthan Adhiniyam, 1962 U. P. Act No. XXVI of 1962 Hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The respondent is a photographer and carries on the business of photography in his studio in a part of his shop. On May 23 1968. the Inspector M. P. Singh visited his shop at 8.15 p.m. and found that he was busy in his studio taking photographs of three or four persons. On a complaint filed by the Inspector the respondent was charged for contravention of Section 5 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhisthan Niyamavali. 1963 hereinafter referred to as the Rules.3. The defence of the respondent was that his establishment was engaged in manufacturing process and wa...
Anant Lal Goel Vs. Dr. Prem Shanker Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All89
A.K. Kirty, J. 1. The plaintiff-appellant, Anant Lal Goel is the owner of the premises numbered 85-D and 85-E, K.P. Kakkar Road, Allahabad. The upper portion of the building, 85-D, is used by the appellant for residential purposes. 85-E consists of three shops on the ground floor. One out of the three shops on the ground floor was let out by him to the respondent under a registered lease deed dated 30-8-1951 for a period of three years with effect from 1-9-1951 on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. Admittedly, the respondent continued to remain in occupation of the shop as a month to month tenant on the same rent after the expiry of the period of three years. The landlord by notice dated 10-4-1961 (Ex. 1) terminated the tenancy and filed a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 75/-. This suit was decreed by the trial court in toto. The trial court's decree has been reversed by the lower appellate court and the entire suit has been dismissed....
Nazir Khan Vs. Ganesh Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All93
K.N. Srivastava, J. 1. This First Appeal from Order arises out of the following facts:The decree-holder appellant executed a decree and the respondents filed an objection under Section 47, C.P.C. His objection was dismissed by the executing Court. Being dissatisfied, the judgment-debtor filed an appeal. The lower appellate Court held that all the points raised in the objection under Section 47, C.P.C. were not decided by the executing Court and, therefore, allowing the appeal, remanded the case for rehearing. It is against this remand order that the decree-holder appellant has filed this First Appeal from Order.2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order of remand was passed under Section 151, C.P.C, and, therefore, this order is not appealable under Order 43, Rule 1, Clause (e). In support of this contention, the following decisions have been cited:1. Baisnab Padhan v. Parma Padhan : AIR1964Ori156 . 2. Chandra Mohan Sahay v. Uni...
J.P. Srivastava and Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1972
Reported in: [1978]111ITR326(All)
Gulati, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the IndianIncome-tax Act, 1922.2. The assessee is a private limited company. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1960-61, the assessee had earned a sum of rupees one lakh which in its opinion was exempt from income-tax. Thus, in the return filed for the assessment year 1960-61, the assessee did not include in its taxable income the sum of rupees one lakh and appended the following note in Part D of the return which is meant for showing items of income and gain in respect of which the assessee claims exemption.'Addition to capital reserve......Rs. 1,00,000. (i) It is a receipt of casual nature not arising from any business, profession, vocation or occupation ; and(ii) It is also not taxable as capital gain on account of aggregate capital loss of Rs. 21,09,001 brought forward under Section 24(2B) from 1954-55 and 1956-57.' 3. The Income-tax Officer passed an assessment order on March 7, 1964, but did not deal with ...
Chhedi Vs. Smt. Indrapati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All446
T.S. Misra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision of the Civil and Sessions Judge, Linked Court of Gonda-Bahraich at Gonda, allowing the appeal of the plaintiff respondent and reversing the decree passed by the trial Court by which the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be, briefly, stated as follows:The plaintiff alleged herself to be the sirdar of several plots situate in village Basantpur, Pargana Tulsipur and the defendant had no right, title and interest in the same. She contended that the defendant filed a false suit in the Court of the Judicial Officer, Balrampur under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on 29th September, 1961 against the plaintiff and on 30th September, 1961 he filed a compromise purporting to have been arrived at between the parties in the suit. She, however, did not have any knowledge of the institution of the suit or of the compromise petition. In the month of October, 1964, the ...
Lakshmipat Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1972
Reported in: [1974]93ITR162(All)
K.L. Gulati, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. It relates to the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 The following common question of law arises in both the years which has been referred to us for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the rent-free accommodation, the other benefits provided to the assessee by M/s. J. K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. during the relevant years, were incomewithin the meaning of Section 2(6C)(iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922?'2. The assessee, Lala Lakshmipat Singhania, was at the material time a director of J. K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. He was provided free accommodation by the company in its house known as 'J. K. House' at Calcutta. The Income-tax Officer treated the free use of the said property in the hands of the assessee as a perquisite under Section 2(6C) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The value of the rent-free accommodation was fixed at Rs. 19,440 for each of the two assessment years...
Bhagwati Prasad Hajela Vs. Bishambhar Nath Singh Kapoor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All552
ORDERJ.S. Trivedi, J.1. The applicant is a judgment-debtor and the opposite party is a decree-holder. The decree-holder had originally applied for delivery of possession through an amin. Subsequently when the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Civil Judge it was prayed that possession be effected through a Commissioner. The Additional Civil Judge granted the prayer and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to effect delivery of possession The order was challenged in revision, and it was contended that the executing court was not competent to effect delivery of possession through a Commissioner. Reliance was placed on Padam Sen v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 218. The learned IInd Additional District Judge dismissed the revision holding that the case referred and relied by the revisionists was distinguishable. Hence this revision.2. The question involved in this revision is whether delivery of possession could be effected through a Vakil Commissioner. The learne...
J.K. Bankers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1972
Reported in: [1974]94ITR107(All)
Gulati, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It is a consolidated reference relating to assessment years 1940-41 to 1946-47. The question No. 1 relates to the assessment year 1940-41 alone. The question No. 2 relates to all the assessment years while question No. 3 relates to assessment years 1940-41 to 1944-45. The questions are : ' 1. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was competent to direct the Income-tax Officer to calculate the amount of interest again and to pass a fresh assessment order so as to disallow out of interest a sum in excess of Rs. 30,000, when the assessee appealed against the disallowance of Rs. 30,000 2. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in including in the taxable income of the assessee the sum of Rs. f 5,000, due as rent from M/s. J. N. Cocolas & Co. Ltd. when the assessee's case was that in respect of that source of income it followed the cash system of accounting...
Chitra Talkies Vs. Durga Dass Mehta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All40
K.B. Asthana, J.1. This second appeal of the decree-holder arises out of an execution proceeding taken for delivery of possession by eviction of the judgment-debtor from a Cinema building known as Chitra Talkies in the city of Haradwar. In order to appreciate the controversy arising in this appeal it is necessary to refer to certain facts.The decree-holder M/s. Chitra Talkies (Buildings) is a registered partnership. Its original partners were Mahant Shankaranand having 5/16 share, Achroo Ram 3/16 share, D. P. Chopra 5/32 share, B. L. Chopra 5/32 share and Sansar Chand Goel 3/16 share. Durgadas Mehta, the judgment-debtor, took on lease the Chitra Talkies buildings from the decree-holder at a monthly rent of Rs. 1150/- for exhibiting films. It appears that he fell into arrears. The Chitra Talkies (Buildings) through Sansar Chand Gohal then filed a suit against Durgadaa Mehta, the tenant, for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and for his eviction having terminated the tenancy by a noti...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »