Allahabad Court August 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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Laxmipat Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1972
Reported in: [1974]97ITR188(All)
Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Kanpur. The following question has been referred to us:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, are applicable for determination of the assessee's interest in the wealth of the firm styled as Messrs. J, K. Bankers, for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1964-65 ?'2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. Lala Laxmipat Singhania is its karta. He had a share in a partnership firm of the name and style of Messrs. J. K. Bankers. For the purpose of computing the total wealth of the assessee's family its share in the wealth of the firm had to be taken into consideration. While computing such a share the Wealth-tax Officer took the net wealth of the firm as per its books of accounts ignoring its liability on account of the outstanding income-tax dues. The assessee contended that the ...
Dr. M.C. Kackkar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR87(All)
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. In the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 1954-55, the petitioner purchased an X-Ray machine for Rs. 32,000. He started an X-Ray clinic in the name of M.S. Kackkar's X-Ray Home. Depreciation was allowed to him on the value of the X-Ray machine in the assessment years 1954-55 onwards until the written down value became nil. Thus, in the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65, no depreciation was allowed. During the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 1965-66, the petitioner took in his son as a partner and continued to carry on the business in the same name and style. Thus, Kackkar X-Ray Home became a partnership concern. The petitioner valued the X-Ray machine at Rs. 20,000 and in the books of accounts of the firm a credit was given to him of Rs. 20,000 in his capital account. In other words, he handed over the X-Ray machine to the firm after valuing it at Rs. 20,000. During the assessment proceedings f...
Yusuf Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1220
K.N. Seth, J.1. Yusuf has appealed against the order of the learned Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge. Bulandshahr, convicting and sentencing him to imprisonment for life under Section 302, I. P. C, and to nine months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34, IPC Kalua has preferred' a separate appeal against his conviction and sentence of nine months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323. IPC Nasib Ullah and Babu. two other co-accused, were also awarded a sentence of nine months' rigorous imprisonment, the former under Section 323/34, IPC and the latter under Section 323, IPC but they appear to have submitted to the order.2. Nasib Ullah and Babu accused were brothers, Yusuf and Kalua were cousins. They all lived near an open piece of land known as Penth Ka Maidan within the town of Sikandarabad Nasib Ullah carried on the vocation of welding and plating and in the course of his business he got acquainted with Mohan, a resident of Mohalla Rampura. Four or five days prior to the o...
Raja Jagat Ranvir Mahesh Prasad Singh Vs. Smt. Baqriden and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All11
Jagmohan Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant in the Court of Civil Judge, Pratapgarh praying for the cancellation of a sale-deed dated 5-1-1960 executed by respondents Nos. 9 to 11 in favour of one Abdul Rahman who was predecessor of the defendants-respondents Nos. 1 to 8, and for possession over the said house after their ejectment.2. This house admittedly belonged to Raja Jagatpal Bahadur Singh, a Taluqdar of Kaithola Estate. He executed a deed dated 29-5-1935 in favour of his wife Rani Dharam Raj Kuer respondent No. 9 in respect of this house and some other property. According to the plaintiff under this deed Rani Dharam Raj Kuer was granted a heritable but non-transferable lease so far as the house in dispute is concerned and as such under the terms of this grant she could only remain in possession of the house but could not make any temporary or permanent transfer thereof. The Raja died on 9-9-1949. Before that he had adopted the plaintiff-a...
Mangla and Sons Vs. the State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC105(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm and acts as a Government auctioneer in respect of articles auctioned by the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals, Government of India. The terms and conditions on which the petitioner acts as an auctioneer are embodied in the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Government of India. These terms and conditions have been quoted in extenso in paragraph 1 of the petition. Condition No. 1 enjoins on the petitioner to conduct the auction personally or by one of the permanent staff, unless sanction is obtained in writing from the Director-General for someone else to conduct it. The auctions held are to be supervised by the Director-General or his representative, who decided whether to accept or reject the highest bid. Condition No. 1 of the agreement further states that the auctioneer will act only as an agent to secure the most advantageous bid and has to act in accordance with the decision of the representative o...
ibrahim Vs. the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All378
ORDERH.N. Seth, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petitioner Ibrahim prays for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 3rd of September, 1970, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 2. The dispute between the parties concerns Plot No. 326 of village Bidiyani. In the year 1953 this plot was entered in the names of Ashik Ali, Haitul, Saifullah Taluqdar and Ibrahim. Ashik Ali and others and Haitul for himself and as guardian of Ibrahim executed a sale deed on 1st of August, 1953 in favour of respondent No. 4 Mahabir Prasad for a consideration of Rupees 7,000/-. On 24th January, 1965 an order was made directing mutation of the name of Mahavir Prasad. This order was given effect to in the Khatauni for the year 1362 F. The mother of Ibrahim as his guardian filed suit No. 752 of 1954 in the court of Munsif Khalilabad challenging the sale deed executed by Haitul transferring the the share of the minor in the properly. Subsequently ...
Ram Khilawan and ors. Vs. Banshi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All72
Satish Chandra, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment under Section 202 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on the fooling that the defendant appellant was an asami.2. The plaintiff alleged that the ancestors had usufructuarily mortgaged the plots in dispute with the ancestors of the defendants under a document dated 21st July, 1869 for a sum of Rs. 50/-. The plaintiff wanted to reclaim possession and to that end he deposited the mortgage money of Rs. 50/- in court. The principal defence was that on the expiry of sixty years' period from the date of mortgage the same came to end and, therefore, the plaintiff could not claim the equity of redemption. The status of the defendants changed thereafter to hereditary tenants. Hence, they were not liable to be ejected as asamis.3. The trial court accepted the defence and dismissed the suit. The findings Were, however, reversed on appeal where the suit was decreed. The appellate decree was confirmed by the Board ...
Kailashpati Singhania and ors. Vs. Ram Gopal Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All316
Kirty, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of Suit No. 203 of 1953 instituted on 25th August, 1953, Two reliefs were sought by the plaintiffs; one was for a decree for Rs. 1,48,532/- with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of six PER cent per annum, while the other was in respect of half share of the plaintiffs in certain assets. It was prayed that a commissioner be appointed for purposes of ascertaining the amount due to the plaintiffs in respect of such assets. The suit was contested by both the defendants and was dismissed in toto by the trial Court.2. The material facts briefly are as follows:--The parties to the suit belong to two well-known business families of Kanpur. They may be described as Singhanias and Guptas respectively. Admittedly, the Singhanias and Guptas for a number of years jointly carried on several business enterprises. One of such business enterprises was carried on under the name and style of M/s. India Supplies--a registered firm of which a...
Nagar Mahapalika Vs. Parmeshwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1704
P.N. Bakshi, J.1. Parmesar son of Chunni Sao has been acquitted by the Additional City Magistrate, Varanasi on 3-10-1969 of an offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated mustard oil at his shop C.K. 68/23 Kachchi Sarai, Police Station Chauk on 27-9-1968 at about 12 noon,2. The case for the prosecution is that Kesho Prasad Singh, Food Inspector. Nagar Maha Palika, Varanasi went to the shop of the accused situate in Mohalla Kachchi Sarai at about 12 noon 27th September, 1968. The accused on who was running a grocer's shop (Perchoon ki dookan) was present . at that time. The Food Inspector informed him by tendering form No. 6 that he wanted a sample of the mustard oil which was being purchased by him for chemical examination. He purchased 375 grams of mustard oil from the accused on payment of Rs. 1.50 P. at the rate of Rs. 4/-iper K.G. The said oil was divided in three parts and put in three separate inphials. which were sealed...
Smt. Sia Dulari and ors. Vs. Smt. Bhagwati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All260
Hari Swarup, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for rendition of accounts and for recovery of the amount that may be found due. Plaintiff's case was that she had entrusted a sum of Rs. 2,000 to Babu Lal, husband of defendant No. 1 and father of defendants 2 to 7 in the year 1950. The money was paid on the basis of an agreement that Babu Lal will invest the amount on behalf of the plaintiff and will pay her the profits earned by such investment. According to the plaintiff Babu Lal continued to render accounts and pay the profits to her till 1952. Thereafter he neither rendered any account nor paid any money. Babu Lal died in 1960. The plaintiff filed the present suit in 1961. The plaintiff estimated the profits at Rs. 500/-and claimed a decree for the same amount or any additional amount that may be found due on accounting. The defence, inter alia, was that the defendants were not liable to render accounts as claimed by the plaintiff. The receipt of the money as wel...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »