Allahabad Court October 1973 Judgments
Municipal Board, Ghaziabad Vs. Seth Jai Prakash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All61
Hari Swarup, J.1. These appeals have been tiled by the Municipal Board Ghaziabad, and by the State of U. P. against the judgment of a learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition tiled by respondent No, 1. By his judgment the learned Single Judge has held that the land in dispute had not vested in the State Government under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and that consequently the Slate Government could not have by a notification issued under Section 117-A of the Act vested it in the Municipal Board, Ghaziabad.2. It appears that some land including plot No. 582 of village Bhojna, Pergana Loni, Ghaziabad, district Meerut, was acquired for the North Western Railway. Some of the land acquired was found to be surplus to the requirements of the Railway and was sold by auction on March 15, 1943, through the Land Acquisition Officer, Ghaziabad. Sri Mukand Lal, father of Seth Jai Prakash who had riled the writ petition, purchased an area of 48.13 acres including plot No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ram Chandra Ram Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC394(All)
Hari Swarup, J.1. These writ petitions raise common questions of law and are based on similar facts. We accordingly decide them by a common judgment.2. The petitioners were dealers in country liquor. On their turnover for the assessment year 1969-70, the Sales Tax Officer made assessments and demanded the tax. The assessment was challenged through writ petitions filed by the petitioners. This court, while admitting the writ petitions, issued interim orders restraining the respondents from recovering the sales tax assessed on the petitioners. Ultimately, the petitions were dismissed and the taxation was held valid. After the petitions were dismissed, the authorities proceeded to recover from the petitioners the tax as well as the interest payable thereon by virtue of Section 8(1-A) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Present petitions have been filed challenging the recovery from the petitioners of the amount of interest which became due for the period during...
Tag this Judgment!Ram NaraIn and ors. Vs. Sattar Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1236
ORDERK.B. Srivastava, J.1. This revision arises out of proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure.2. After the rival parties had put in their written statements of their respective claims as respects the facts of actual possession of the subject of dispute and after they had also put in documents and affidavits in support of their respective claims, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate drew up a statement of the facts of the case and ordered the record of the proceedings to be forwarded to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to decide the question whether any and which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute on the date the preliminary order or within two months next before the date of that order. The grounds on which he passed this order, to put them in his own words, are as follows:The written statements and affidavits along with documentary records filed by the parties fail to convince me as to which party was in possession over the plots in ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalika Vs. Smt. Jagdei and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1973
Reported in: 1975CriLJ465
ORDER1. This reference arises out of proceedings under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner Kalika was served with the notice and the first date of hearing fixed was March 22. 1971. He did not attend Court on that date and the case was adjourned to May 18. 1971 for ex parte hearing. Ex parte evidence was recorded on May 22, 1971 and arguments were heard on June 1. 1971. Pronouncement of judgment was, however, adjourned to July 2 and1 on that date and on several subsequent dates Kalika appeared and prayed for the setting aside of the ex parte order and for* permitting him to contest the application on various grounds, including the ground that the opposite party, namely, his wife was living in adultery. The learned Magistrate, however did not set aside the ex parte order and passed a final order allowing maintenance at the rate of Rs. 30/-. per month to the wife. Kalika went up in revision to the court of Session and that court has made a reference in this Court...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur Vs. Uttam Kumar Promod K ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR730(All)
HARI SWARUP J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, at the instance of the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in its conclusion that the partnership deed dated November 15, 1961, admitted the minors to the benefits of partnership and they were not full-fledged partners ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-firm was entitled to registration under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The assessee-firm was constituted under a deed of partnership dated 15th November, 1961, with two major partners, viz., Kameshwar Dayal and Govardhan Das. Two minors, Uttam Kumar and Pramod Kumar, were also alleged to be admitted to the benefits of this partnership. The Income-tax Officer held that according to the partnership de...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Autar Santosh Kumar Ltd. and ors. Vs. B.B. Saxena, District Magist ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All467
Satish Chandra, J. 1. The petitioners were appointed handling agents for the sale of foodgrains supplied 'to them by the Government. By an order dated 2nd August, 1973, the District Magistrate, Moradabad terminated the petitioners' appointment. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition on the ground that the principles of natural justice were violated as also on the ground that the order has been passed mala fide. In the supplementary affidavit, the petitioners have further taken the plea that the impugned order cancelled the licence granted to them under the U.P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964, and thus violated their right to carry on trade guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 2. It is admitted that the petitioners held a licence under the U.P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. This licence authorised them to carry on business as a dealer or commission agentin foodgrains. The respondents' case is that the impugned order does not canc...
Tag this Judgment!Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1973
Reported in: [1975]101ITR621(All)
Hari Swarup, J. 1. This petition has been filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax refusing to entertain the revision filed by the petitioner tinder Section 33A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. The petitioner was assessed to income-tax and a demand of interest amounting to Rs. 2,27,193 was also added under Section 18A(6) of the Act. Against this order regarding interest the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner. Petitioner also filed an appeal against the order of assessment to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and therein also took a ground challenging the correctness of imposition of interest under Section 18A(6). The Assistant Commissioner did not originally decide this point but, ultimately, on remand from the Appellate Tribunal, decided the appeal regarding interest also, and by his order dated November 30, 1967, reduced the interest to Rs. 1,34,186. Against this order also the petitioner filed a revision under Section 33A, before the Commis...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Prakash Gaur Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC495(All)
H.N. Kapoor, J.1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 14 of the Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to undergo R.I. for three months. The order was confirmed in appeal.2. The applicant is a partner and manager of the firm, M/s. Satya Prakash Rajesh Kumar, which was assessed to sales tax over Rs. 36,000 for the year 1967-68. He had not deposited the tax in spite of notice. He was, therefore, prosecuted under Section 14 of the Act.3. The only point that has been argued before me in this case is that the prosecution of the applicant is illegal as the dealer was the firm itself and, as such, that firm should have been prosecuted. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there would have been no objection if all the partners of the firm, including the applicant, had been prosecuted. In support of this contention he has placed reliance on a case of the Madras High Court, Public Prosecutor v. K. Jac...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.C. Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1973
Reported in: [1975]100ITR244(All)
Hari Swarup, J. 1. The question of law referred to us at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is: 'Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in disposing of the appeal by the Income-tax Officer solely on the ground that in the connected case of I. C. Gupta, it has been held under the Gift-tax Act that there was a gift by I. C. Gupta to the extent of Rs. 20,587 ?' 2. The question has arisen in the following circumstances: 3. The assessee, H. C. Gupta, was a partner in Kailash Motors, having 35% share therein. In the accounts of the partnership firm a credit balance of Rs. 26,250 stood in favour of the assessee on July 31, 1959. On that date, H. C. Gupta transferred his share for valuable consideration to his nephew, I. C Gupta, the consideration for the transfer being the four hundred shares of Rs. 1,000 valued'at Rs. 40,000 standing in favour of I. C. Gupta in Motor Sales (Private) Ltd. Since thereafter I. C. Gupta became the holder of H. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. SatyanaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC187(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. The assessee Satya Narain Singh carried on the business of manufacturing and selling bricks. For the assessment year 1964-65, the Sales Tax Officer determined the turnover of bricks sold by the assessee as Rs. 20,500, and in view of Notification No. ST-6438/X -- 1012-1962 dated 1st December, 1962, issued under Section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, calculated the tax payable on that turnover at the rate of 7 per cent.Ultimately, by an order dated 3rd July, 1971, the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Varanasi, reduced the turnover determined by the Sales Tax Officer to Rs. 9,000. While determining the rate applicable for calculating sales tax on sale of bricks, the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, relied upon certain decisions of the High Court wherein it has been decided that the notification dated 1st December, 1962, issued under Section 3-A, levying sales tax on the sale of bricks at the rate of 7 per cent was invalid, and held that such turnover was li...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »