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.
Ram Sewak Hari Om Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1972
Reported in: [1974]33STC453(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bricks. He was assessed to tax on the turnover of bricks under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 at 7 per cent on account of a notification issued under Section 3-A of the Act. He filed two separate appeals against the two assessment orders in question. The appeals were to be accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of tax as provided by the first proviso to Section 9 of the Act. It appears that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 1474 of 1969 challenging the notification under Section 3-A with regard to the bricks. That writ petition was allowed. The notification was struck down as ultra vires and a mandamus was issued to the Sales Tax Officer to refund to the petitioner the tax deposited by him in respect of the turnover of bricks. The petitioner accordingly did not deposit any tax but wrote a letter to the Sales Tax Officer to adjust the adm...
Smt. Shephali Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Smt. Kamala Banerjee and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All531
T.S. Misra, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession and recovery of damages from the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the house in suit was owned by her husband M. P. Chatterji. The marriage of the plaintiff No. 1 with M. P. Chatterji was performed under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1872 and out of this wedlock the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 were born. Subsequently M. P. Chatterji developed illicit connections with the defendant No. 1 and both of them started living in a separate house. The defendants Nos. 2 to 6 are the sons of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff contended that the defendant No. 1 was not legally married with M. P. Chatterji and M. P. Chatterji died in the year 1959 and the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be his heirs and legal representatives. The defendants reside on the first floor of the house which was purchased by M. P. Chatterji and the plaintiffs have sought for their eviction therefrom. 2. The suit was contest...
Hari Shanker and ors. Vs. Shri Bali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ4
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. This is a reference made by the Ist Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge Jaunpur in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.2. Sri Bali moved an application on 27th June 1970 alleging that he was in possession of plot No. 1610/1 situate in village Barain, Police Station Jalalpur, district Jaunpur and that the opposite party was interfering with his possession which was likely to lead to breach of peace. On these allegations he prayed that action be taken under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate called for a report from the Station Officer Jalalpur. The Station Officer submitted his report on 2nd July 1970; after a perusal thereof the Magistrate was satisfied that there existed an apprehension of the breach of peace. As such he issued a preliminary order on 3rd July 1970 requiring the parties to put in written statement of their respective claims about possession and also to file affidavit in support of their claims. He further directed the property in q...
Umar Khan Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1706
ORDERS.D. Khare, J.1. This is an application in revision directed against an order dated 12th June. 1970. passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi. dismissing the appeal filed by Umar Khan (applicant) and one more person against their conviction under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Un lawful Possession) Act. 1966, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment to each.2. The case tinder Section 3 of the Act was started against the present applicant and two other (persons, namely. Lala Ram and Guti. The Special Rail way Magistrate, by his order dated 5th March. 1970, convicted and sentenced all the three accused persons. It appears that no appeal was filed by Guti, but the appeals preferred by Umar Khan and Lala Ram were heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Jhansi, and dismissed by his order dated 12th June, 1970.3. Both the courts below have arrived at the finding that the ghamelas (fish plates) recovered from the...
Jairam Singh and ors. Vs. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All61
Satish Chandra, J.1. This appeal arises out of a proceeding for partition of a holding held by the consolidation authorities.2. Admittedly, the appellant held one third share in the holding in dispute; onethird was held by respondents Nos. three and four while the remaining one third was held by Appellants Nos. 2 to 5. The consolidation authorities proceeded to partition this holding in accordance with the admitted shares, after ignoring a decree dated 9th March, 1956, passed by the civil court in a suit (No. 892 of 1955) filed under Section 176 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the division of this very holding. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held that since the civil court decree had not been enforced inasmuch as the final decree had not been passed by the revenue court the same had no binding effect. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) confirmed the actual division of the holding made by the Consolidation Office...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nathimal Gaya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1972
Reported in: [1973]89ITR190(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The assessee was in the relevant assessment year 1948-49 a Hindu undivided family. Its assessment for that year was made by including not only the returned income but by also including certain credits appearing in the books of the assessee, as being income from undisclosed source. In view of the additions made in the income, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 28(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on February 27, 1958. The penalty proceedings were long drawn out and eventually terminated by an order dated August 22, 1963, by which the Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty on the assessee for concealing its income. The assessee had while the penalty proceedings were pending, claimed a partition of the joint Hindu undivided family as from 6th May, 1958. The Income-tax Officer had not accepted the partition, but the assessee went up in appeal against that order, and the appeal was eventually allowed on the 12th December, 19,63, recognising the parti...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Beni Prasad Tandon
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1972
Reported in: [1973]89ITR185(All)
Dwivedi, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred for the court's opinion this question : ' ' Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the order of assessment ' 2. Let us give the pertinent facts now. Shri B. P. Tandon, the assessee, filed returns for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The returns were filed in the status of individual disclosing his income from all sources. Subsequently, he filed two separate returns. In one return he showed income in the status of an individual. In the other return he showed income as the karta of a Hindu undivided family. In the first return his remuneration for services rendered to Lala Manmohan Das Trust was shown as his personal income ; in the other return income of the Hindu undivided family of which he was the karta was shown. The Income-tax Officer did not pass any order on the return filed by him in the status of a Hindu undivided family. But, he held that the entire i...
Ramakant Bindal Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All23
ORDERHari Swarup, J. 1. This is an application under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 381 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') praying for special leave to appeal against the order of the Tribunal. Certain land acquisition proceedings had taken place and the matter was referred to the Tribunal and the Tribunal under the proviso to Section 392 (372?) of the Adhiniyam demanded security for costs from the claimant. The applicant (sic). The applicant objected to the demand on the ground that the proviso was not applicable as the notification for acquisition had been issued prior to the commencement of the Adhiniyam. He also prayed for referring the matter to this Court under Section 113, C. P. C. The Tribunal has held that as the claim is being decided by the Tribunal in praesenti and it could award costs, the provision for demand of security for costs under the proviso will be applicable to the facts of the present case. It has also ...
Budhan Vs. Lala Harbans Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All63
J.S. Trivedi, J.1. Budhan and Ramji Lal executed an agreement to sell the property in dispute in favour of Ved Prakash son of Harbans Lal on 13-9-55. On 1-3-62 Suit No. 65 of 1962 was filed by Ved Prakash for specific performance of the contract of sale. It was stated by him that the aforesaid two persons had agreed to sell the plots in dispute for a sum of Rs. 200/- and that a sum of Rs. 50/- was advanced as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed after they had won the case that was pending in the Hon'ble High Court. The case was won of 27-11-61. It was also alleged that the aforesaid defendants had subsequently entered into some agreement with Sri Ram Kar Prasad and Narendra Kumar who were arrayed as defendants 3 and 4. Ramji Lal who was defendant No. 1 admitted the plaint allegations. Budhan who was defendant No. 2 denied the execution of the agreement and stated that the sum of Rs. 50/- was borrowed from Harbans Lal and he never entered into any agreement to sell the prope...
D.C. Puliani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1972
Reported in: [1973]89ITR164(All)
Dwivedi, J.1. The petitioner defaulted in the payment of income-tax assessed on him. The Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty on him in accordance with Section 221, Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner of Income-tax against the order imposing penalty. It was rejected. He has now filed the present petition.2. When the petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench, the petitioner argued that as Section 221 does not give power to impose penalty to the Income-tax Officer, specifically, the order imposing penalty is without power and invalid. He relied on Smt. Kusum Kumari v. Union of India, [1972] 85 I.T.R. 19 (All.). It is a Division Bench decision of the court. The decision squarely supports the petitioner's argument. But the Bench hearing this petition had doubts about the correctness of Smt. Kusum Kumari. So the case has been referred to a larger Bench. Hence, this petition is before us now.3. Section 221 materially reads :'(1) When an as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »