Allahabad Court September 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.
Sheo NaraIn Vs. Radhey Shyam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All315
Om Prakash Trivedi, J.1. The only point in this appeal is whether the Court-fees paid on the memorandum of appeal is sufficient. The respondent Lala Ram Kumar bad filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,500/-. The suit was decreed for Rs. 1,750/- and the parties were directed to pay and receive costs according to their success and failures. The respondent then appealed and paid court-fee of Rs. 1.50 paise on the memorandum of appeal. An objection was taken before the District Judge Bahraich that the court-fees paid on the memorandum of appeal was insufficient. According to the objection the ad valorem court-fees should have been paid on the amount decreed, that is, Rs. 1750/-. The respondent's contention was that he had not contested the amount decreed but had only filed the appeal against refusal to pass an instalment decree by the trial court. It was urged that the appeal could be treated as an objection under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code on which only a court-fees of Rs. 1.50 paise w...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.K. Brothers (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR464(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, referred the following question under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for our opinion: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in considering the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the assessee's action in not distributing any dividend, the Income-tax Officer should have taken into account the losses suffered up to the last day of the 12 months following the end of the previous year as distinct from up to the date of the general meeting ?'2. The relevant assessment year in the present case is the year 1956-57. In this year, the income of the assessee-company was determined at Rs. 89,922. The previous year for this assessment year ended on November 12, 1955. The general meeting of the company was held on July 12, 1956. In this meeting no dividend was declared. Inasmuch as the asses...
Prayag Dass Agarwal Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR160(All)
Gulati, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. One Lala Beni Madho Agarwal of Allahabad died on September 29, 1964. His estate became liable to estate duty under the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (No. 34 of 1953). The petitioner is his son and is an accountable person under the Act. He filed a statement of accounts declaring the value of the estate of the deceased liable to estate duty at Rs. 4,96,196. The first respondent, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Allahabad, assessed the value of the estate at Rs. 20,27,189 and determined the estate duty payable at Rs. 3,37,543.40. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the assessment which is still pending. The petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 79,429-40 towards the duty and a sum of Rs. 2,58,114 still remains payable.3. The estate of the deceased which was subjected to duty, includes an item of immovable property known as premises No. 1, Phaphamau Read, Allahabad. This premises consists of one main buildi...
Dharamvir Kashyap and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All272
ORDERH.N. Seth, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners pray that, an order dated 12th of February. 1971, passed by the State Government under Section 7-F of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 1947 be quashed.2. Petitioner No. 1 Dharamvir Kashvap is the son of one Sheer Singh Kashyap. Petitioner No. 3 Udain Kashyap is the son of Petitioner No. 1 and grandson of Sheer Singh Kashyap, Sheer Singh and Tara Chand (Petitioner No. 2) were the tenants in premises Nos. 31 and 30 of Mohalla Gudaryan. Shamli Road. Muzaffarnagar. Accommodation in premises No. 31 consists of a shop facing south on the ground floor whereas that in premises No. 30 consists of a room, courtyard and a staircase on the first floor. Respondent No. 4 Sumat Prasad is the landlord of the two accommodations. He moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Muzaffarnagar seeking permission to file suits for eiectment of Sheer Sinsh Kashyap and Tar...
Chief Inspector of Stamps Vs. Zila Parishad, Unnao and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All223
ORDEROmprakash Trivedi, J.1. This Civil Revision has been filed by the Chief Inspector of Stamps, U. P. under Section 6-B of the Court Fees Act and arises from an order dated 21-8-1968 passed by the Civil Judge, Unnao, rejecting his opinion on the question of deficiency in court-fees by holding that the court-fees paid on the plaint by the opposite party was sufficient. The suit out of which the present revision arises was filed by the Zila Parishad, Unnao, against the State of U. P. and another. The subject-matter of dispute is open land with a building, well etc. According to the plaintiff the building on the disputed land was constructed with funds belonging to the erstwhile District Board of Unnao and the land as well as building and well in dispute have been and are in the plaintiff's possession. The plaintiff has received a notice of resumption of this property from the defendants who claimed that the land is Nazul property and the building was constructed with public donations. ...
Abdul Hakim and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ492
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. A complaint was filed under Section 500 I.P.C. by one Mohammad Ishaq against opposite parties Abdul Hakim and Abdul Karim in the Court of Judicial Officer City Meerut. The Court took cognizance of the offence and recorded the statement of the complainant. Process was issued to the opposite parties. It appears that Mohammad Ishaq died on 11th May, 1969. An application was filed on 13.9.1969 by Rafeeq Ahmad son of Mohammad Ishaq for permission to continue the prosecution. An objection was filed thereto by the Opposite parties to the effect that in view of Section 198 Cr.P.C. Rafeeq Ahmad should not be allowed to continue the proceedings. The Judicial Officer City held that the provisions of Section 198 Cr.P.C. were not attracted as they referred only to the initial jurisdiction of a court to take cognizance of an offence. He therefore, allowed the application of Rafeeq Ahmad to proceed with the case by his order dated 3rd June, 1970. Abdul Hakim and Abdul Karim bei...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. the Bullion and Agricultural Produce ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All205
Satish Chandra, J.1. This appeal raises an important question as to the powers possessed by the Forward Markets Commission, appellant No. 2.2. The Bullion and Agricultural Produce Exchange Limited, the respondent, is a public limited company. It carried on the business of regulating and controlling forward contracts in various goods. The respondent made an application to the Forward Markets Commission for being registered under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, No. 72 of 1952, on 15-12-1962. The Commission issued a registration certificate to the respondent showing that the respondent was entitled to carry on business in Arhar-ki-chooni. One of the conditions mentioned in the certificate was that the respondent shall not conduct forward trading in any commodity other than those specified thereunder except with the previous approval of the Forward Markets Commission. The respondent was, however, content with this condition and it permitted its members to do the business of forward...
Garhwal Motor Owners Union Ltd. Vs. the Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-1972
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ548All
Satish Chandra, J.1. On or about December 6, 1969, the State Government referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Lucknow, the dispute whether the employers who are the- appellants before us have validly and justifiably retired Sita Ram Semwal (respondent No. 3) and C.L. Mahajan (respondent No. 4). The Labour Court by its award dated 3rd June, 1970, answered the dispute in favour of the two workmen. Aggrieved, the appellants institute.. a writ petition in this Court. Before the learned single Judge the award was challenged on three grounds:(1) that the reference made by the State Government is bad as there was no industrial dispute in existence;(2) that the service rule introduced by the resolution of the company dated December 2, 1966 was applicable to respondents Nos. 3 and 4, and(3) that the ape of superannuation could be, fixed by agreement, and, since respondents Nos. 3 and 4 accepted retirement, they must be deemed to have agreed to die fixation of the age of retirement.2. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›