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.
Mirza Afzal Beg Vs. Prabhu Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All26
T.S. Misra, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for his ejectment from the accommodation in question and for recovery of arrears of rent and future mesne profits. He alleged that the defendant had failed to pay the rent from 19th May, 1963 and onwards despite demands. Ultimately a composite notice dated 3-12-1963 was served on the defendant on 5-12-1963 demanding arrears of rent and determining the tenancy. As the defendant failed to comply with the same, a suit for the aforesaid relief was filed. The defendant contested the suit on variety of grounds. He, inter alia, alleged that as the house needed repairs, he gave a notice to the plaintiff to carry out those repairs. The plaintiff, however, failed to do so. Consequently the defendant carried out the repairs and incurred an expense of Rs. 20/- in that connection. Deducting this amount from the rent he remitted the balance amount to the plaintiff which the plaintiff refused to accept. H...
Saeed Ahmed Vs. Syed Qamar Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All24
K.B. Asthana, J. 1. This is a defendant tenant's appeal from a concurrent decree of his eviction from a shop of which the plaintiff respondent was the landlord. 2. On 30-12-1967 the landlord obtained permission from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to file a suit for eviction of the tenant. A revision was filed by the tenant before the Commissioner and on 25-1-1968 pending the revision the Commissioner stayed the operation of the order of permission. The landlord served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy. On 14-2-1968 the landlord filed a suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages. It was alleged that the permission had been obtained from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the suit was maintainable. It was further alleged that a registered notice sent to the tenant by the jail address where he was detained was returned as refused, while another notice sent to the tenant by his home address and redirected to the...
State Vs. S.D. Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ999
J.M. L. Sinha, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of the order dated 16th January 1969 passed by a Magistrate 1st Class Saharanpur dismissing the complaint filed against the respondent for his prosecution under Section 92 of the Factories Act.2. The prosecution case, very briefly stated, was as follows:Sri M. C. Mathur Inspector of Factories Meerut Region, Meerut. inspected M/s New International Industries Pacca Bazar Saharanpur on 10th May 67 and found that the factory was committing a breach of Rule 3 of the rules framed under the Factories Act punishable under Section 92 thereof, A complaint was therefore submitted by Mr. M. C. Mathur to the District Magistrate Saharanpur praying that cognizance of the offence may be taken by him. The complaint bears no date but it was sent to the District Magistrate through a letter dated 2nd of August 67. It can therefore be presumed that the complaint had been prepared on or before 2nd of August 1967. The complaint was transferred to the City Magist...
Smt. Ram Piari Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All492
ORDERR.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner was married to one Ram Adhin, who had 1/7th share in village Charapur Kauriya, District Unnao. Ram Adhin died on September 14, 1944, leaving behind the petitioner as his widow and his mother Smt. Poona. The petitioner was a minor then. Smt. Poona got her nameentered over half the estate of Ram Adhin. She is alleged to have executed a will of her half share on October 28, 1947, in favour of respondent Nos. 6 to 8, (hereinafter referred to as the 'contesting respondents'), who are the sons of her daughter. She died sometime in 1947 and after her death the contesting respondents got their names mutated over the land in dispute on the basis of the will of Smt. Poona. After the death of her mother-in-law the petitioner married one Beni Lodh.3. After her remarriage the petitioner filed a civil suit in the Court of Munsif, Unnao, on 18th July, 1949, for possession of the half share of Ram Adhin w...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Ramesh Chand Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR307(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, has made this reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, U.P.2. The case relates to the estate duty assessment in respect of the property of Sri Gaindamal who died on 14th October, 1964.3. The deceased was a partner in a firm, Messrs. Gaindamal Sukhbir Singh. From out of his personal funds, deposited in the firm, he made a gift of an amount aggregating Rs. 65,000 to his grandsons on various dates. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 25,000 was gifted within two years of 14th October, 1964, the date on which Gaindamal died. Whole of Rs. 65,000 was not included in the estate duty return filed by the accountable person.4. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty found that subsequent to the gift, the donees deposited the amount gifted to them with the firm, Gaindamal Sukhbir Singh, in which Gaindamal was also partner. The totalamount of gift was, therefore, liable to be i...
Ajai Kumar Ashok Kumar Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC604(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. By this petition the petitioners have challenged the proceedings for the recovery of penal interest on arrears of sales tax due from them.3. In respect of the assessment year 1955-56, the petitioners were assessed to sales tax under the U. P. Sales Tax Act in the sum of Rs. 39,753.42. As the petitioners had already deposited a sum of Rs. 30,491.05 along with the quarterly return a notice of demand for the balance of Rs. 9,262.37 was served upon them. The petitioners filed an appeal against the assessment order and also approached the Commissioner of Sales Tax for the stay of the tax demanded from them.4. It appears from the counter-affidavit of Sri H. D. Gupta that on 15th September, 1960, the Commissioner passed an order staying the realisation of tax till the decision of the petitioners' appeal. Later, on 29th November, 1960, another order was passed by the Commissioner granting stay 'till further orders'....
Hira Lal Ayodhya Prasad Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC365(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. The petitioner, a joint Hindu family concern, is a registered dealer under the U. P. Sales Tax Act. For the assessment year 1966-67, the Sales Tax Officer passed an assessment order dated 29th April, 1969, under Rule 41(5) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules. The petitioner filed an appeal and by an order dated 24th July, 1970, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Nainital, set aside the assessment order and remanded the case to the Sales Tax Officer for reassessment after making a detailed enquiry into the exemptions claimed by it. On remand, the Sales Tax Officer passed a fresh assessment order dated 28th February, 1971, disallowing certain exemptions claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner once again appealed. That appeal is pending. On 20th March, 1971, the Sales Tax Officer issued to the petitioner a notice under Section 21 of the Act in respect of the assessment year 1966-67 saying that he had reason to believe that the turnover of the petitioner had esc...
Mohammad Ekram Khan and Sons Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC328(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition fall within a very narrow compass. An ex parte assessment was made against the petitioner. Thereafter, an application under Section 30 of the Act was moved for setting aside the ex parte order. The Sales Tax Officer refused to set aside the order on the ground that in case the application were allowed, the assessment could not be made as limitation had run out. Apart from this he also took the view that the assessee had not appeared in spite of a number of dates having been fixed in the case and, as such too, the application deserved to be dismissed. The assessee, thereafter, filed a revision against this order before the Judge (Revisions). Subsequently, it discovered that the order was appealable and in this view of the matter it filed an appeal before the Judge (Appeals) on the 20th February, 1971, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. ...
Lallan Ram Vs. Gobri Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All540
N.D. Ojha, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that defendant No. 1 was not the adopted son of the plaintiff and that the property shown in list Kha and Da of the plaint was the exclusive property of the plaintiff. The suit was contested by the defendant No. 1 on various grounds and was partly decreed and partly dismissed by the trial Court. The trial Court found that the defendant No. 1 was the adopted son of the plaintiff and consequently it dismissed the suit so far as relief of declaration that defendant No. 1 was not the adopted son of the plaintiff is concerned. In regard to the relief about ownership of the property in dispute a decree was granted by the trial Court declaring the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to be co-owners of the said property. On appeal by the plaintiff the Lower Appellate Court has decreed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the property in dispute. It has, however, dismissed the suit for...
Bhopal and ors. Vs. Sub-divisional Officer Ii and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All8
Satish Chandra, J.1. On 20th August, 1958, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bareilly, passed an order, requisitioning 17.2 acres of land in village Karora for rehabilitation of persons affected by flood, under Section 3 of the U. P. Acquisition of Property (Flood Relief) Temporary Powers Act, 1948. The appellants were the owners of the land. They subsequently made a representation against the requisition. That having evoked no response, they instituted a writ petition in this Court. The requisition order was challenged on a variety of grounds. The learned Single Judge accepted the plea raised by the appellants that no notice, as required by Section 3 of the Act, had been issued or served on the appellants. Nonetheless, he held that non-service of the notice will not invalidate the requisition as the appellants had knowledge of the requisition proceedings. The various other points raised in support of the writ petition were also repelled. The writ petition was dismissed.2. In our opinion, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »