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.
Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad Vs. Dr. M.M. Laloraya and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All559
Satish Chandra, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad. They are directed against a judgment quashing an order rejecting an application for release made by the landlord, an order of allotment of the accommodation in favour of Mr. U. C. Misra,, respondent, and also quashing proceedings under Section 7-A of the Rent Control Act, for the eviction of the landlord. The two Laloraya brothers, who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were the landlords of bungalow No. 2/8 Bund Road, Allahabad. In June, 1961 a portion of this house fell vacant. One of the brothers made an application for its release. The application was allowed and the first respondent started living in the released portion. Mr. K. P. Srivastava was the tenant in another portion of the house. He was under orders of transfer by the end of May, 1962. On May 29, 1962 the two landlords made an application for release of that portion as well for their personal occupation. It was state...
Mushiyat Ullah Vs. Abdul Wahab
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All539
Om Prakash Trivedi, J.1. This is the defendant's second appeal.2. This dispute in this case relates to a house situate in the district of Gonda of which the respondent Abdul Wahab is the landlord and in which the appellant Mushiyat Ullah has been living as a tenant on his behalf. The respondent brought a suit against the appellant Mushiyat Ullah for ejectment of this house and for recovery of arrears of rent alleging that he had sent a registered notice on 10-4-1969 at the Gorakhpur address of the appellant which was received back with an endorsement of refusal by the postman. The suit was resisted, on a variety of grounds, one of. which was that no notice, as alleged for the respondent-plaintiff, was ever served upon the appellant nor was, it ever refused by him. It is not necessary for the purpose of this appeal to notice the other grounds of defence. The trial Court raised a presumption of service of the notice under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and Section 27. of the General Cla...
Dr. Smt. Supriya Vs. Dr. Vasudev Dang
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All94
ORDERK.N. Shrivastava, J. 1. This is an application in revision against the judgment and orderpassed by the District Judge, Dehradun, upsetting the order of the Civil Judge regarding return of the plaint and holding that Dehradun Court had jurisdiction to hear the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. The petitioner filed this petition with the allegation that the parties last stayed at Dehradun as husband and wife and, therefore, Dehradun Court had jurisdiction to try the petition. This contention of the petitioner was denied by the respondent who stated that she had not gone to Dehradun to stay with the petitioner but had gone with the intention of totally separating herself from the petitioner and to bring back her certain articles from there.3. The learned Civil Judge relied on paragraph 9 of the petition and held as a fact that the respondent had not gone to Dehradun to settle with the petitioner but to settle her disputes with him. The lea...
Shiv NaraIn Vs. Chandrika Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All155
K.N. Srivastava, J.1. This is a tenant's appeal in which the judgment of the lower appellate Court has been assailed mainly on the ground that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid so far as the notice did not allow the period of thirty days to the defendant mentioned in the section.2. There is no dispute that the notice is dated 31-1-1967. There is also no dispute that this notice was received by the defendant on 7-2-1967. There is a mention in this notice Ext. 4 that the tenancy is being terminated with effect from 8th of March, 1967 and the tenant was directed to vacate the premises on 9th of March. There is also no controversy that if 7th February. 1967, the date on which the notice was received by the tenant and 8th March. 1967, the date on which the tenancy was terminated are included within the period of thirty days, then the notice was well within law as the period of thirty days was allowed, but if these two days or any of these days is exclu...
Sri Krishna Dutta Vs. Vishwanath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All210
ORDERK.N. Srivastava, J.1. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff-appellant, arising out of the following facts:The plaintiff is said to be the auction-purchaser of the disputed property. He was resisted by the contesting defendants in giving the delivery of possession. The plaintiff then filed an application under order XXI Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code that the resistance was being caused by the contesting defendants on behalf of the judgment-debtor and at his instance. This application was dismissed as barred by time. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed a suit, as provided under order XXI, Rule 103, Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that Order XXI, Rule 103, Civil Procedure Code did not apply to the facts of the case and the suit should not have been filed under the aforesaid provision. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the lower appellate court. Hence, this second appeal.2. The main question for determination in t...
The State Vs. Suraj Bali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1223
ORDERK.B. Srivastava, J.1.This criminal revision arises out of the following fact's:2. Opposite parties Suraj Bali, Misri Lal Rama Nand. Sagdu, Shankar and Moti Lal were prosecuted under Sections 147. 324/149. 323/149 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, before the Judicial Magistrate, Mohanlalganj. Lucknow. He recorded the statements of various witnesses including that of one Ram Chandra as P. W, 2. Thereafter he convicted and sentenced the opposite parties to undergo various terms of imprisonment on the said counts; They appealed and the appellate Court, being of the view that the evidence indicated the alleged commission of an offence under Section 387 of the Indian Penal .Code which was exclusively triable by a court of Session, set aside the convictions and sentences and remanded' the case to the learned Magistrate with a direction that he should commit them to the court pf session on a proper charge. On the receipt of the record after remand, the learned Magistrate passed a commitme...
Smt. Sushila Narendrajit Singh and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All427
ORDERR.B. Misra, J. 1. The facts leading up to the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution lie in a narrow compass. Smt. Sushila Narendrajit Singh (Petitioner No. 1) owns the premises known as Vivek Cinema at 14/151, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Chunniganj, Kanpur and Direndrajit Singh (petitioner No. 2) is the son of petitioner No. 1. The premises (Vivek Cinema) was given on lease to M/s. Rakesh Theatres (respondent No. 3), which is a partnership firm of which Virumal Dembla (respondent No. 4) is the Managing Partner. Manohar Lal Dudeja (respondent No. 5) is another partner of the firm. The lease was granted on 1st July, 1955, in the first instance for a term of five years with an option to the lessee of renewal of the lease for another five years. The lessee obtained A licence from the District Magistrate, Kanpur, who is the Licensing Authority under the U. P. Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1955 (U. P. Act of 1956 -- hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Act) for giving exhibitions...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lakshmipati SinghaniA.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR598(All)
GULATI J. - This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Lucknow.The assessee is L. Lakshmipati Singhania, assessed as an individual. The assessment years are 1958-59 and 1959-60. During the previous years relevant to these assessment years, the assessee acted as a financial adviser to a limited company by the name of J. K. Jute Mills Ltd. He was previously a director of that company. He resigned from the directorship. Later on he was appointed by the company as financial adviser under a resolution of the board of directors. He was allowed a rent-free residential accommodation in a house belonging to the company at Calcutta. He was not to receive any further remuneration from the company. The Income-tax Officer considered that the benefit derived by the assessee from the company of free residential accommodation at Calcutta was income of the assessee which could be assessed under section 12 of the Indian ...
Darbari Singh Saini Vs. the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All519
Hari Swarup, J.1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. i.e. the Board of Revenue, has made the reference under Section 57 of the Stamp Act for our opinion on the following questions: (i) Whether the document under reference is a lease or an agreement to let immovable property and duty is payable on it under Article 35, Schedule 1-B of the Stamp Act, as amended in its application to U.P. vide U.P. Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1962?(ii) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, then whether the document would fall under Clause (c) of the aforesaid Article 35 and the total amount of Rs. 3,78,095.73 (representing Rupees 69,591.21 already paid on account of a premium, Rs. 49,136.10 already paid as development charge and Rs. 1,59,368.42 promised to be paid as development charges) would be treated as premium and Rs. 732.50 as annual rent for calculating the proper stamp duty due thereon and whether additional stamp duty @ Rs. 2 as imposed by Section 67-H of the U.P. Town I...
Rani Rajendra Kumari Ba Vs. Income-tax Officer, b Ward
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1972
Reported in: [1974]93ITR268(All)
Gulati, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against an order dated December 31, 1971, passed under Section 154/155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is a partner in a firm called 'M/s. Rajendra Silica works'. She had also income from royalty, interest on securities, ground rent andproperty. For the past several years the petitioner is being assessed to income-tax in respect of the income arising to her from her share in the partnership firm. The income from other sources is being assessed in the hands of her husband under Section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and since the coming into force of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is being assessed under Clause (iii) of Section 64 of that Act, presumably because the income from those sources arises to the petitioner from assets transferred to her by her husband. Similar assessments were made in respect of the assessment year 1967-68, when the income arising from the partnership was a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »