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.
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. the Benaras Electric Light and Power Co. Lt ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All74
Satish Chandra, J.1. These two appeals have been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. They raise same question, and can be conveniently decided by a common order. They are directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge allowing two writ petitions and directing the appellant not to take action under Section 3 of the U. P. Electricity (Temporary Powers of Control) Act, 1947. The learned Judge found that this section was void on the ground of repugnancy with Sections 57 and 57A of the Electricity Supply Act No. 54 of 1948, as amended by the amending Act, No. 101 of 1956, and with Section 22B of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as amended by the Central Act No. 32 of 1959.2. The relevant and material facts in relation to the Benares Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd., the respondent in Special Appeal No. 301 of 1972 are as follows:3. The respondent company carries on the business of generating, supply and distribution of electrical energy in the city of Benares, under a licence gr...
J.K. Hosiery Factory Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR16(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. This is a consolidated reference for four assessment years 1948-49 to 1951-52. The Tribunal has submitted this statement of the case to this court for its opinion on the following questions of law :'(1) Whether, in all the facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to the proper legal effect of the various documents, the assessee-firm consisted of Jagerhwar Prasad Agarwal and Sir Padampat Singhania, L. Lakshmipat Singhania and L. Kailashpat Singhania or it consisted of the said Jageshwar Prasad Agarwal and the three trustees of the Kamla Town Trust ? (2) Whether the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of lease money paid to Sir Padampat Singhania, L. Kailashpat Singhania and L. Lakshmipat Singhania as business expenditure was correct in law ? (3) Whether the finding of the Tribunal refusing exemption to the assessee from business profits tax on the 25 annas share of the trustees of the Kamla Town Tru...
Lakshman Prakash Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR492(All)
Gulati, J.1. In compliance with the order of this court tinder Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Income-tax-Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has submitted this statement of the case with the following question of law for our decision : 'Whether upon a true construction of the documents and other materials on the record the income of Rs. 43,582 accrued on February 26, 1945 or on January 25, 1946, and whether the amount was assessable in the assessment year 1945-46 or in the assessment year 1946-47 ?'2. This court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on 25th January, 1962, to submit a statement of the case on the question of law set out above. The Tribunal found that the entire correspondence between the assessee and the military authorities and the minutes of their meetings were not brought on record. It remanded the case to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax who allowed the parties to produce that material before him. On the basis of that material pr...
Devan Man Mohan Lal Vs. L. Piary Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All16
Kirty, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Saharanpur, dismissing the suit filed by the appellant against the two respondents for specific performance of the contract to reconvey a house along with some land which the appellant had sold to respondent No. 1 for Rs. 25,000/- by sale deed dated 12-12-1958. On that very date two other documents were executed. One was an agreement for the reconveyance of the property in question to the appellant by respondent No. I. The other document was a rent-note executed by the appellant in favour of respondent No. 1 agreeing to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month for the property in question. Respondent No. 2 is a transferee from respondent No. 1. On 21-1-1959 respondent No. 1 transferred the property which he had purchased from the appellant for the same consideration of Rs. 25,000/-. In the plaint the appellant prayed that a decree for specific performance of the agreement to reconve...
Sukhraj Vs. Ram Bali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All79
K.B. Asthana, J.1. The question that falls for determination in this appeal is whether the plaintiff-appellant's suit for redemption of the usufructuary mortgage was premature having been filed before the expiry of the period of sixty years against the stipulation in the mortgage deed that the mortgagor will not redeem the mortgage till the expiry of that period. The two courts below have differed on this crucial question. The trial Court held that the term in the mortgage deed preventing the mortgagor from redeeming the mortgage before the expiry of sixty years when considered along with other circumstances amounted to a clog on the equity of redemption and was not binding, hence the plaintiff's suit was not premature. The lower appellate Court took the contrary view and held that the term in the mortgage deed to the effect that the mortgagor will not have the right to redeem the mortgage before the expiry of sixty years Was not a clog on the equity of redemption in the circumstances ...
Suraj Pal and ors. Vs. Smt. Meera Alias Merhia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All148
1. This Is a defendants Second Civil Appeal against the judgment and decree of Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad dismissing the appeal and confirming the decree of the trial Court The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents for possession and injunction restraining the defendant-appellants from interfering with their possession over the property in dispute. The plaintiffs' case was that Jang Bahadur was the owner of the house in dispute and after Jans Bahadur's death the plaintiffs who were the daughters of Jang Bahadur came in exclusive possession and continued to remain in exclusive possession. It was further stated that on account of fire that broke out in the village most of the house was damaged and when she started to make constructions the defendant-appellants attempted to demolish the said constructions and during the pendency of the suit took forcible possession. The suit was initially filed for injunction. The relief for possession was added on the allegation that during ...
Ramdhari Vs. Jodhan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All81
K.B. Asthana, J.1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I think the judgment and decree of the Court below has to be set aside.2. The relief sought in the suit was that the sale deed executed by the first set of defendants in favour of the second set of defendants on 23-9-1968 was void and be cancelled. Such a relief can be claimed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act as the plaintiff alleged in the plaint that if the said sale deed is left outstanding it may cause him a serious injury. It is well settled that a specific relief for cancellation of an instrument can only be granted by a civil court and not by a revenue court notwithstanding that the subject-matter of the said sale deed is agricultural land. The view taken by the court below that the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for a declaration of his rights in the disputed agricultural land and his suit though framed in the manner seeking a relief for cancellation in effect and in reality was a suit for dec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›