Allahabad Court December 1973 Judgments
Rajendra Prasad Rai and anr. Vs. Rajdeva Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All294
S. Malik, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal against the judgment dated 14-10-1970 of the Civil Judge, Azamgarh, dismissing the appellants' appeal and upholding the trial court's judgment decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for specific performance of a contract entered into between the plaintiff and defendant-respondent No. 2.2. The relevant facts, as recorded by the courts below, are that defendant No. 1 Brij Behari Rai and the plaintiff, namely, Rajdeva Rai entered into the agreement (Ex. 1) dated 21-2-1964 under which Brij Behariagreed to sell the property described in the plaint to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,000/- within six months and was paid Rs. 400/- by the plaintiff as earnest money. It was further agreed upon that the balance shall be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed. Ultimately, defendant No. 1. Brij Behari Rai sold the property by the deed dated 24-7-1965 to the appellants who were arrayed as defendants Nos. 2 and 3. It has also been found that defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Kailash Medical Hall
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1973
Reported in: [1975]35STC174(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The assessee is a chemist. He prepares medicine mixtures according to doctors' prescriptions and sells them. The disclosed turnover amounted to Rs. 8,744. The assessing officer disbelieved the quantum and assessed the assessee to sales tax under Section 3-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act as a manufacturer after determining the turnover at Rs. 20,000. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the contention of the assessee that he was not a manufacturer. On appeal the findings as well as the quantum were affirmed. The assessee took the matter in revision.2. The Additional Judge (Revisions) held that in view of the decision of this court in Dr. Sukh Deo v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. [1963] 14 S.T.C. 581, to the effect that there cannot be a manufacture unless the resulting produce is a commercially different article, the assessee cannot be said to have manufactured a commercially different article. The view of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Shanker Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC292(All)
N.D. Ojha, J. 1. Firm Munna Lal Gauri Shanker was assessed to sales tax for the assessment years 1961-62,1962-63 and 1963-64. The amount of tax was subsequently sought to be recovered from the petitioner on the ground that he was a partner of the firm aforesaid. The petitioner has challenged the recovery proceedings in the present writ petition mainly on two grounds: firstly, that he was not a partner of the firm Munna Lal Gauri Shanker and, secondly, that in any view of the matter, he having been born on 15th January, 1946, was a minor at the relevant time, and could not be a partner of the aforesaid firm. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it has been asserted that the assessment was made on the firm Munna Lal Gauri Shanker and the assessing authority had held in the assessment orders that Munna Lal and Gauri Shanker were partners in the aforesaid firm. The averment that the petitioner was born on 15th January, 1946, is contained in paragraph 1 of the writ petition. Reply to...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ajodhya Prasad Gopi Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1973
Reported in: [1977]107ITR951(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. During the course of the assessment proceedings for the year 1952-53, as well as for the year 1953-54, the Income-tax Officer found certain entries in the cash book which disclosed purchases of crystal sugar from L. H. Sugar factory in the accounts of the assessee's munims and which were not included in the return. He included such items as income of the assessee from undisclosed source. The assessment order for the year 1952-53 was passed on 30th November, 1954, while the assessment order for the year 1953-54 was passed on 23rd March, 1955. Aggrieved, the assessee went up in appeal. Meanwhile, the Income-tax Officer drew up penalty proceedings under Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The case appears to have been fixed for 9th February, 1956, on which date the assessee addressed a letter to the Income-tax Officer requesting postponement of the hearing till the disposal of the appeals pending before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, The Appel...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Ajaz Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Mohammad Rafiq and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All178
K.B. Srivastava. J. 1. This reference to a Full Bench arises out of a special appeal filed against an order of a learned Single Judge who placing reliance upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Chandra Sharma v. State of U. P., 1962 All LJ 426, allowed the writ petition in part. The Division Bench, which heard the special appeal, felt that the decision in Krishna Chandra Sharma's case required reconsideration and it has, therefore, referred the following question for the conderation of this Full Bench :--''Whether an order passed by the State Government cancelling an order of allotment and directing the release of the accommodation in favour of the landlord passed in revision filed tinder Section 7-E of the Bent Control and Eviction Act is an order passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Kent Control and Eviction Act within the meaning of Section 7-A (1) of that Act'2. In Krishna Chandra Sharma's case, 1962 All LJ 426 the original order of allotment was m...
Tag this Judgment!Nanak Chand Khanna Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All471
S. Chandra, J.1. The appellant was employed as a booking clerk in the North-Eastern Railway. In January, 1961 he was transferred to Deoria. On 13th October, 1969 the Divisional Superintendentpassed an order transferring him to Haldharpur Flag Station in the district of Ballia. The appellant made a representation whereupon this order was modified on 12th May, 1970, and instead, he was transferred to Katka Flag Station in the Varanasi Division. The appellant filed a suit in the court of the Additional Munsif, Deoria for a declaration that the two transfer orders were illegal, and for an injunction restraining the Railway authorities from implementing those orders, or from transferring the plaintiff to any other flag station. Along with the plaint the appellant, filed an application for an ad interim injunction. The learned Munsif issued an ad interim injunction as prayed. The Railway authorities put in appearance and filed objections to the injunction. On 4th December, 1971, the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Jamuna Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1973
Reported in: [1975]36STC442(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Aligarh, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, can rice bran be included in the category of bhusi within the meaning of Notification No. ST-3471/X dated 16th July, 1956 2. The assessee deals in rice bran and other commodities. In processing paddy the inner husk is separated and it is called by the name of polish or rice bran. According to the facts given in the statement of the case and in the revisional order, the rice bran is usually sold by the dealers as cattle fodder. It is also processed by the oil-mills for extracting oil. The asses-see claimed that rice bran was exempt from sales tax by virtue of Notification No. ST-3471/X dated 16th July, 1956. The Sales Tax Officer repelled this claim. He held that rice bran was taxable as an unclassified item. This view was upheld in appeal. The assessee took the dispute in revision. The Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath and ors. Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1239
K.B. Srivastava, J.1. The appellants jagannath, Ram Swarup, Tokhey and Ghurra have been convicted under Section 326, read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code, and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. They have also been convicted under Section 342, of the Indian Penal Code, and the sentence awarded for that is rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months each. The two sentences, however, have been made concurrent. This appeal is directed against these convictions and sentences.2. The learned. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the case made out was one under Section 324, of the Indian Penal Code, and not under Section 326, and therefore, the convictions of the appellants under Section 326 should be set aside and instead they should be convicted under Section 324 and the sentence should also be reduced. In order to appreciate this argument I would like to recite the injuries first. These are as follows:1. Incised wound...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sugar Dealers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1973
Reported in: [1975]100ITR424(All)
Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur.2. The assessee is a registered dealer and deals in sugar. The assessment year involved is 1957-58 with the previous year ending on 12th April, 1957. During the previous year it purchased 5,200 shares of Rohtas Industries at their face value of Rs. 52,000. These shares were sold for Rs. 1,16,909 during the previous year on August 23, 1956. There was thus a surplus of Rs. 64,909, which the assessee claimed to be a capital gain. The Income-tax Officer held that the surplus earned by the assessee was profit arising from the business. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax agreed with this finding of the Income-tax Officer. On second appeal the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention and held that the surplus arising from the sale of shares was capital gain.3. Another controversy that arose relates to the for...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Singh Rawat Vs. Rameshwar Dayal Saxena and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All217
S. Malik, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment dated 26-10-1970 of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Allahabad, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for arrears of rent, ejectment of the appellant from the premises in suit and for compensation for use and occupation of the same from the date of termination of the tenancy. 2. The appellant is the tenant of the respondent and the accommodation in question is a house bearing No. 96, New Katra Extension in this city. It was a month to month tenancy, the monthly rent being Rs. 20/-. As the landlords or in other words, the respondents refused to accept rent in the past, the appellant had started depositing the monthly rent in the court of the Munsif concerned under Section 7-C of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. HI of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in accordance with the order passed by the learned Munsif in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 217 of 1965. It may be mentioned that...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »