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.
Shanti Prasad Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All28
T.S. Misra, J. 1. This is plaintiff's appeal. He had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 500/- as damages against the State of U. P. and two others. The defendant No. 2 was the Naib Tahsildar, Tahsil Sadar Rampur and the defendant No. 3 was the then Sales Tax Officer, Rampur. The trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 100/- against the State of U. P. and dismissed it against the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that the claim against them was barred by time. The State of U. P. preferred an appeal from the said decree. The appellate Court below allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed against the State. Thus the entire suit stood dismissed. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has come to this Court in the second appeal.2. The only point of law urged before me was that the State was vicariously liable for the tort committed by its employees in due course of their employment and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pr...
Puttoo Lal Vs. Ram Sewak
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All470
T.S. Misra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision or the Additional Civil Judge, Mainpuri. The material facts for the decision of this appeal are as follows. On 22nd March, 1955 the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant and Gram Sabha concerned for partition of certain agricultural plots of land under Section 176 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in the Court of Munsif Mainpuri. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 4th March, 1957. Lots were thereafter prepared by the Revenue Authorities concerned on 16th June, 1958. Thereafter a final decree was ordered to be drawn up on 19th November, 1959, and it was actually drawn up on 10th February, 1961. The decree-holder filed an execution petition for possession and it appears that possession was delivered to him in pursuance of the final decree so passed.An application was thereupon filed under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code by Puttu Lal judgment-debtor, inter alia, contending that the fina...
K.T. Wire Products Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR459(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and raises an interesting question relating to the interpretation of sections 32 and 75 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm which is registered under the Income-tax Act. The assessment year involved is 1966-67. The Income-tax Officer by an assessment order dated November 14, 1969, assessed the net. income of the petitioner at Rs. 1,02,881. The petitioner was aggrieved with the assessment order inasmuch as no adjustment was given in respect of development rebate and depreciation allowance and losses of the earlier years were not set off against the income assessed. The petitioner accordingly moved an application under Section 154 for the rectification of the assessment order. The petitioner had suffered losses including the depreciation allowances for the immediately three preceding years as under: Assessment yearDetermined profit or lossesDepreciationRs.Rs.1961-62Loss 16,05717,55...
Mohammad Yakub and Sons Vs. the Sales Tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC406(All)
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It seeks to quash two notices under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act issued by the Sales Tax Officer for the assessment year 1966-67.2. For this assessment year, the petitioner was assessed in respect of its turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act by an assessment order, a copy whereof is annexure A to the petition. By a separate order, the petitioner was also assessed to sales tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act (annexure B). Subsequently, on 20th March, 1971, the petitioner received two notices dated 18th March, 1971, under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, seeking to reopen both the assessments, and requiring the petitioner to appear before the Sales Tax Officer on 30th March, 1971, with its books of account. It was stated in the notices that the Sales Tax Officer had reason to believe that some turnover liable to tax had escaped assessment.3. The petitioner challenged the validity of these proceedings. He inspected ...
Paras Nath Misra Vs. U.P. State Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1972
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ354All
N.D. Ojha, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dated March 27, 1964 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2768 of 1959. Paras Nath Misra is the appellant in Special Appeal No. 377 of 1964 whereas Special Appeal No. 498 of 1964 has been filed by the U. P. State Industrial Tribunal and the State of U. P. Paras Nath Misra was employed as a darban in the establishment at Allahabad of Amrit Bazar Patrika Private Ltd. The State Government referred an industrial dispute in regard to bonus between Amrit Bazar Patrika Private Ltd., herein referred to as the company, and its employees on December 16, 1957. The Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad gave its award which was published on March 21,1958. Since it became enforceable on the expiry of 30 days of the date of its publication the proceedings would be taken to have remained pending by virtue of Section 6D of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (Act 28 of 1947) hereinafter referred to as the Act, from Decembe...
Smt. Bitti Devi Vs. Rameshwar Dayal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ495
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. This is a reference by the II Additional Sessions Judge Etawah for quashing the order of the Magistrate dated 9.11.1970 permitting the complainant to apply for the issue of commission for recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the village of the accused two of whom are pardanashin ladies.2. One Srimati Bitto filed a complaint on 27.11.1967 against Rameshwar Dayal his wife and his daughter-in-law for their prosecution for offences under Sections 323 and 452 I.P.C. According to the allegations in the complaint there was a dispute over a parnala between the complainant and the accused. On 26.10.1967 at about 7 A.M. when the complainant was alone in the house the wife (accused No. 2) and daughter-in-law accused No. 3 of Rameshwar Dayal are alleged to have come inside the cattle-shed of the complainant and tried to close the parnala. There was a scuffle between the ladies. Rameshwar Daval accused No. 1 is alleged to have reached there and to have brick...
Abdul Rasheed Vs. Bashir Hussain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All545
K.B. Asthana, J.1. This is a defendant-tenant's appeal from a concurrent decree evicting him from a shop of which the plaintiff-respondent was the landlord.2. The undisputed facts are that the defendant was a tenant in a shop of which the plaintiff was landlord on payment of Rs. 7.50 as rent per month. The shop was divided into two portions, a kotha at the back and a sort of gallery in front. The front portion in which the defendant carried on his business fell down. The defendant reconstructed the front portion and brought it into the same shape and form as before. Thereupon the plaintiff served upon the defendant a notice terminating his tenancy and asking him to quit on the expiry of 30 days from the service of the notice. The defendant did not vacate the shop. The plaintiff then filed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages. In paragraph 4 of the plaint it was pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant despite instructions to the contrary reconstructed af...
indu Bhushan Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All557
Satish Chandra, J.1. The appellant, as a member of the Azamgarh Gram Co-operative Society, took loans from the Society aggregating Rs. 9,000/-. Disputeshaving arisen they were referred to arbitration. The arbitrator by his award dated 12th May, 1951, awarded a sum of Rupees 11,294/- as the principal and interest in favour of the Society and against the appellant. The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar, though the award in respect of interest was modified. Due to certain moves of the appellant, recovery of the amount was stayed at the instance of the State Government. But the proceedings were re-started somewhere in 1959. Thereupon, the appellant preferred a writ petition in this Court, which was however, dismissed. Hence the present appeal.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant has reiterated before us the three points that were taken before the learned Single Judge. After having heard learned Counsel, we find no substance in any of them.3. The first point urged...
Jai NaraIn Dass and anr. Vs. Smt. Zubeda Khatoon
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All494
T.S. Misra, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal. A suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages as well as ejectment of the defendants was filed by the respondent, inter alia, on the grounds that the defendant No. 1 had committed default in making payment of rent and had also caused nuisance in the accommodation in suit. The defendants contested the suit denying these allegations. The defendant No. 1 alleged that he had paid a sum of Es. 500/- to the plaintiff's son on 13th June, 1966 and had further remitted a sum of Rs. 150/- by money order on 3rd October, 1966 thus covering the rent for the period from 1st December, 1965 to 30th September, 1966. He placed reliance on the entries in his account books in support of these payments. The validity of the notice for ejectment was also challenged.2. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants filed an appeal which was also dismissed. Both the Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the defendant No. 1 app...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›