Allahabad Court May 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.
D.S. Bist and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC239(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This and the connected cases are references under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. They relate to the same assessee, but to different assessment years. A common question of law has arisen in these cases which has been referred by the revising authority for the opinion of this court. The question is :Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the article ceased to be an agricultural produce and whether the tea produced by the assessee would be exigible to sales tax 2. The assessee owns some tea gardens. The tea-leaves grown in the gardens are sold after being processed and packed. The assessee's contention is that the sale of such tea is exempt from sales tax.3. Under Section 3, which is the charging section, it is the turnover for a year which is taxed. The term 'turnover' has been denned in Section 2(i) in the following words:'Turnover' means the aggregate amount for which goods are supplied or distributed by way of sale or are sold, or the aggregat...
Shri Gaur Dhan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Coll ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All85
ORDERC.S.P. Singh, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a Co-operative Society having been registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. The Society required land for certain purposes and it accordingly moved the Collector, Mathura for acquisition of 28.94 acres of land. Subsequent thereto, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 1st May, 1965. An inquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act was held, and objections were filed. While these objections were pending, Babulal Sharma respondent No. 6 filed a writ petition No. 1842 of 1966 challenging the acquisition. The petition was rejected on the 20th May, 1966 by a Bench consisting of Hon'ble W. Broome and Satish Chandra, JJ. In the meantime, the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act was concluded and thereafter the matter was considered by the Land Acquisition Committee which gave approval for the acquisition sometime in March, 1968. Inasmuch as the acquisition was f...
Raja Bahadur Bhagwati Prasad Singh Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All525
G.C. Mathur, J. 1. In view of the difference of opinion between Satish Chandra, J. and J.S. Trivedi, J., the following question has been referred for opinion to me:-- 'On the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Malikana allowance granted to the appellant as compensation for acquisition of his proprietary title in the 135 villages?' 2. The circumstances, in which the question arises, are as follows:-- The appellant and his ancestors, the Rajas of Daiya, were the Taluqdars of Taluqa Daiya in Pargana Khairagarh, district Allahabad. It appears that, in the beginning of the nineteenth century or at the end of the eighteenth century, Pargana Khiragarh fell into arrears and was taken over by the Raja of Banaras who made it over to one Lal Odwant Singh, Lal Dokal Singh son of Lal Drigpal Singh, the Raja of Daiya, instituted a suit for the declaration of his rights and for possession over Taluqa Daiya. After about 27 years of litigation, by a decree of the King in Council, the suit was...
The Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1972
Reported in: [1973]32STC95(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against an order dated 7th December, 1971, passed by the first respondent, the Sales Tax Officer, Sector 4, Kanpur, under Section 22 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act.2. In respect of the assessment year 1967-68, the petitioner was assessed to sales tax on the turnover of spun pipes and G. I. pipes at the rate of 3 per cent and 6 per cent, respectively by an assessment order dated 23rd December, 1967. Thereafter the Sales Tax Officer issued a notice under Section 22 of the Act on the ground that the pipes in question were 'sanitary fittings' and were liable to tax under Section 3-A at the rate of 8 per cent. The petitioner filed a written objection dated 13th September, 1971, contending that neither the pipes in question were 'sanitary fittings' nor was Section 22 applicable. The Sales Tax Officer has overruled this objection and has passed the impugned order levying tax at the rate of 8 per cent.3. Now, Section...
Mst. Abida Khatun Vs. General Manager, Diesel Locomotive
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1972
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ387All
Satish Chandra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 123, against an order disallowing a claim for compensation. At the hearing of the appeal a learned single Judge felt that there was considerable conflict of opinion on the questions of law involved in this case. He consequently referred the appeal to a Full Bench.2. Mohammad Ayub Khan, the deceased husband of the claimant-appellant, was employed as Works Supervisor in the Diesel Locomotive Works Project, Varanasi. 4th June, 1967, was his rest day but owing to some work the Senior Civil Engineer ordered him to report for duty on that day. In pursuance of this order he started from his house at about 6.30 in the morning. On the way, he was assaulted by some unknown persons. As a result of the injuries caused to him he died on the spot. His widow instituted a claim for Rs. 8,000 as compensation against the employer.3. The Diesel Locomotive Works, the employer of the deceased, admitted that Ayub Khan...
Himalaya Transport and Forwarding Agency and anr. Vs. the State of U.P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All30
ORDERC.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The two petitioners run public carrier vehicles in the Nainital region. The Parliament enacted the Defence of India Act, 1962 (being Act No. 51 of 1962) on the 12th December, 1962. This Act was by Section 1 (3) to remain in force during the period of emergency declared by Presidential proclamation on the 26th October, 1962, and for a period of six months thereafter. Section 6 of this Act introduced temporary amendments in some Acts. By Sub-clause (4) of Section 4 of the Act, it sought to amend the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Section 6 (4) (a) gave powers to the State Government to authorise any person by a notification in the Official Gazette, to perform to the exclusion of the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority, such functions as may be specified in the notification. The State Government thereafter issued a notification on the 26th November, 1962, authorising the Transport Commissioner to fix the minimum rate for plying public carriers, in...
Shekhar Chand Vs. Radhey Shiam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All29
ORDERK.N. Srivastava, J. 1. This revision application arises out of the following facts:2. Radhey Shiam obtained a money decree against Pirthi Singh and Mangal Sen. The property was put to auction. It was purchased by Shekhar Chand on 15-11-1962 for Rs. 1250/-. The amount was less than the decretal amount due to him. The sale was confirmed on 18-10-1963. At the instance of Radhey Shiam the executing Court directed Shekhar Chand on 8-11-1963 to deposit Rs. 600/- being the rateable share of Radhey Shiam out of the execution money, by 14-11-1963. The order was not complied with by Shekhar Chand, who brought a suit No. 768 of 1964. The suit was contested. It was dismissed in default of Shekhar Chand. Radhey Shiam then filed a suit, giving rise to the present revision application, for the recovery of Rs. 600/- from Shekhar Chand. The suit was contested on various grounds and, inter alia, it was pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation.3. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plainti...
Municipal Board, Farrukhabad Vs. Babu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All542
Satish Chandra, J.1. Respondent No. 1 instituted a writ petition against the Municipal Board, Farrukhabad. His grievance was that though he had obtained a licence from the Ramlila Committee for holding a market for the sale of potatoes on a piece of land owned by it yet the municipal authorities have instituted prosecution against the shop keepers who have opened stalls under a permission granted by the petitioner. At the hearing of the writ petition no one appeared on behalf of the Municipal Board nor was any counter affidavit filed. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner respondent that the bye-laws under which the persons selling potatoes could be required to obtain a licence from the Municipal Board were ultra vires their powers and hence their action in prosecuting the stall holders was illegal. A learned Single Judge accepted this submission and allowing the writ petition, he quashed the proviso added to the bye-laws under notification dated July 8, 1954. The Municipal Board w...
The State of U.P. Vs. Hori Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ9
Yashoda Nandan, J.1. This appeal by the State has been preferred against a judgment and order dated 14th November 1968, of a learned Magistrate First Class discharging the respondent Hori Lai for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Since the order was passed after a charge had been framed, it amounted to an acquittal and hence the appeal. The appeal was presented before the Registrar presumably after Court hours on the 20th February 1969, which was the last day of limitation. When the appeal came up for hearing before Jag Mohan Lal Sinha J. a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that the appeal not having been presented before the Court, its presentation was improper and was consequently not maintainable. In support of this objection, reliance was placed on a decision of our brother S. Malik dismissing Government Appeal No. 2025 of 1968 State of U.P. v. Amrik Singh connected with Government Appeals Nos. 202...
Sri Noor Mohd. Vs. Sri Nanwa and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All31
K.B. Asthana, J.1. The only point which arises in this appeal is whether the tender of the arrears of rent by the defendant-tenant to the lawyer who sent the notice of demand on behalf of the plaintiff-landlord, within one month of the receipt of the notice, amounted to valid compliance with the said notice and the defendant-tenant cannot be held to have failed to pay the arrears demanded within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (a) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act).2. Both the courts below have held on the reading of the contents of the notice that the lawyer not having been authorised to receive the arrears of rent the tender made to him would not amount to a compliance of the demand.3. I have heard at some length the learned counsel for the parties. It was argued on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the lawyer having been authorised to demand the arrears of rent on behalf of the landlord, it would be implicit in his authorit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »