Allahabad Court July 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.
State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Jagdish T. Lalwani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All507
N.D. Ojha, J.1. This special appeal Is directed against an order of a learnedSingle Judge dated December 22, 1971 in Civil Misc. Writ No. 4669 of 1971. The respondent passed his VIII Standard Examination in December, 1967 from the St. Joseph High School, Allahabad. Thereafter he discontinued his studies in the aforesaid school and appeared in the High School Examination held in March/April 1969 as a private candidate. It seems, taking the view that the respondent was not entitled to appear in the said examination his result was withheld by the Board and he was informed that unless he obtained exemption from the State Government under Section 9 (4) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) his result could not be declared. The respondent thereafter made numerous representations to the State Government but without any success. He then filed the aforesaid writ petition for quashing of the orders of the State Government refusing to grant exemption to him and ...
Municipal Board, Aligarh Vs. Smt. Asfia Begum
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All550
T.S. Misra, J.1. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that at the relevant time when the decision to make a drain was taken, the Municipal Board stood superseded and an Administrator had been appointed. Section 31 of the U. P. Municipalities Act deals with the consequence or the supersession of the Municipal Board. Sub-clause (b) of that section lays down that 'when the Board is superseded, such person or persons as the State Government may appoint in that behalf, shall so long as the supersession of the Board lasts, exercise and perform, so far as may be, the powers and duties of the Board and shall be deemed to be the Board for all purposes and......'Thus the Administrator in the instant case had full powers of the Board which were to be performed by the Board prior to its supersession. Under Section 189 the Board had the power to construct such drain as it thought necessary and to carry those drains through, across or under any street or place, and after reasonabl...
Bhola Koeri and anr. Vs. Smt. Laxmi Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All537
K.B. Asthana, J. 1. The controversy in this appeal is in respect of title of the plaintiff Smt. Laxmi Devi to the property in suit which is a dilapidated house with some appurtenant land and, admittedly, at one time the disputed property belonged to Bhola Koeri and Smt. Rajwanti, the defendants. 2. The defendants were indebted to one Sitaram Sahu, who obtained a decree against them from the Small Cause Court. As will appear from the sale certificate, Ext. 1, on record, the decree of the Small Cause Court was transmitted for execution to the court of Munsif. In execution of the decree, Sitaram Sahu got the property in sale attached and at an auction held on 18-12-1959 purchased it. The Executing Court confirmed the sale on 3-2-1960 and a sale certificate was issued in favour of Sitaram on 16-4-1960. Smt. Laxmi Devi, the plaintiff, purchased, the property in suit from Sitaram Sahu, through a sale deed dated 7-6-1963. The defendants did not recognise the title of the plaintiff and tried t...
Gauri Ram Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ6
P.N. Bakshi, J.1. Gauri Ram was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Robertsganj. under Section 5 of the Telegraph Wire (Unlawful Possession) Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. He filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge. Mirzapur on 5.11.1969. Thereafter he has come up in revision to this Court. The revision came up for hearing before the learned single Judge who has referred this case for disposal by a Bench.2. The case for the prosecution is that the accused was found in possession of six and half kgs. of telegraph wire at 8.25 P.M. on 7.7.1968 in village Ninga in contravention of the provisions of Section 5 of the Telegraph Wire (Unlawful Possession) Act (hereinafter called the Act). That Pratap Singh (P.W. 2), Station Officer of Police Station Chopan received information through an informer on 7.7.1968 that the applicant along with others had gone for cutting the telegraph wire. He collected Bhola (P.W. 3) and Naradmu...
Shyam Sunder and ors. Vs. Siya Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All382
K.B. Srivastava, J. 1. This special appeal arises out of consolidation proceedings. 2. One Bhikham had two sons, Ram Ratan (father of the five appellants Shyam Sunder, Ram Shankar. Raja Ram, Sheo Ram and Sheo Govind) and Sia Ram, respondent No. 1. The name of Ram Ratan stood recorded in respect of Khatas Nos. 329 and 330, situate in village Bharwara, in the district of Lucknow. On his death, thenames of his five sons came to be recorded. When this village came under Consolidation operations, Sia Ram filed an objection under Section 9 (2), U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming co-tenancy rights to the extent of one-half in these two Khatas on the ground that the name of Ram Ratan came to be recorded originally because he was the elder brother and though his own name was not recorded, he stilt had his cotenancy rights intact because of his cultivatory possession. His objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer and his appeal against tha...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raghunandan Prasad Mohan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1972
Reported in: [1974]97ITR398(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has submitted this statement of the case for the opinion of this court on the following question of law:'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the ease, the assessee-firm was entitled to registration under Section 26A of the Act and the relevant Rules under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'2. The question relates to the assessment year 1959-60. The assessee-firm consisting of two partners, namely, Rameshwar Nath and Mohan Lal, came into existence on 1st April, 1954. It was duly registered under Section 26A of the Act of 1922 for the assessment years 1953-54 to 1956-57. With effect from 1st April, 1956, a change came about in the constitution of the firm. Mohan Lal, one of the partners, who had an eight-annas share, incorporated his brother, Brijmohan Lal, as an additional partner in the firm. Thereafter, Mohan Lal and Brijmohan Lal each had a four annas share in the firm. The partners applied for registrati...
Raja Ram Vs. Bhagwan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All82
T.S. Misra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision of the First Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi. The material facts are these:--2. One Jhooroo filed a suit for partition of agricultural holding on 30-5-1957 in the court of Munsif Hawaii, Varanasi. An ex parte preliminary decree was passed in the case on 6-2-1958. On 20-3-1958, the plaintiff died and his daughter was brought on record as his legal representative. She sold the properties in dispute to Bhagwan Das, whereupon his name was substituted in the suit. The final decree was passed on 7-2-1963. The decree-holder then sought execution of the decree. The decree was executed and the Amin filed 'dakhaldihani' dated 4-6-1963. Whereupon the execution was struck off in full satisfaction. Thereafter the present appellant filed an objection purporting to be under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the entire execution proceedings and contending that the final decree having been passed by a court which had no ...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. Budh Ram Sharma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All150
K.B. Asthana, J.1. This second appeal purporting to be under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code is by Ramesh. Kumar who had filed an objection under Rule 58 of Order XXI. Civil Procedure Code questioning the attachment of a house in execution of a simple money decree in favour of Narendra Deo against Jai Jai Ram.2. The objection under Rule 58 of Order XXI was that the objector and not the judgment-debtor was the owner of the house attached. This objection was preferred on 21-9-1968. The executing court, however, did not stay the execution sale which had been already advertised to be held on 23-9-1968. The sale was held on the day fixed, that is on 23-9-1968 and the highest bid was that of Budhram Sharma which was accepted by the court on 25-9-1968, The objection of Ramesh Kumar under Rule 58 of Order XXI was disallowed by the executing court on 14-4-1970. Before the sale could be confirmed by the court Ramesh Kumar filed a suit under Order XXI, Rule 63 for declaration of his title ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. British India Corporation (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR38(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961, read with Section 10 of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur. 2. The assessee is a public limited company with its registered office at Kanpur. For purposes of the assessment of super profits tax there arose a dispute between the assessee and the income-tax department with regard to the computation of 'standard deduction'. The assessee claimed that as many as fifteen accounts represented reserves which should be taken into account while determining the ' standard deduction '. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the entire claim on the ground that the so-called reserves were not free reserves, but were meant to discharge existing liabilities or to safeguard against the diminution in the value of assets. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax allowed the claim of the assessee in part and held that the following accounts do not re...
Ratan Singh Vs. Musaddi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All473
ORDERT.S. Misra, J.1. The defendant has filed this revision against the order of the Additional Munsif staying the suit subject to the condition that the defendant No. 1 should deposit the arrears of rent claimed. It was urged that Section 10, Civil Procedure Code does not provide for imposition of any condition while granting the stay of the suit and as such the Court below had no jurisdiction to order the applicant to deposit the arrears of rent claimed in the suit There is substance in this argument. The provisions of Section 10, Civil Procedure Code are explicit and if the conditions mentioned therein exist, the Court has not to deal with the later suit and shall not proceed with the trial thereof. Once those conditions are fulfilled, the operative part of the section springs into action and the trial of the later suit has to be stayed. It is not thereafter possible for the Court to impose any condition for staying the suit. If the case is covered by Section 10, Civil Procedure Cod...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »