Allahabad Court February 1973 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.
Kundan Lal Behari Lal Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1973
Reported in: [1975]98ITR359(All)
Gulati, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner, Behari Lal, runs a business in the name of M/s. Kundan Lal Behari Lal at Chandausi of which he is the sole proprietor. He is being assessed to income-tax in the status of an individual. He, however, was notbeing assessed to wealth-tax. It has been alleged by the petitioner that on 20th November, 1971, he went to his counsel in connection with his case under the Income-tax Act for the year 1969-70, when he was told by his counsel that he was liable to wealth-tax. On the following day when he appeared before the Income-tax Officer in connection with the income-tax assessment for the year 1969-70, he informed the Income-tax Officer, who was also the Wealth-tax Officer, that he would be submitting his wealth-tax return for the years 1964-65 to 1970-71, according to the legal advice given to him. He goes on to say that the wealth-tax returns for the aforesaid years were prepared on the 28th November, b...
Chhedilal Singh Vs. Srimati Bhanumati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1097
ORDERB.D. Gupta, J.1. This revision arises out of proceedings under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. By the order sought to be revised, applicant Chhedi Lai Singh has been directed to pay to the opposite-party Shrimati Bhanumati maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month with effect from the 2nd of April, 1968. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having scrutinised the material before me, I find myself unable to maintain the order of the learned Magistrate.2. There was no controversy that Bhanumati had been married to the applicant somewhere about 1960. The Application for grant of maintenance under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code was made by Bhanumati on the 2nd of April, 1968 on the allegation, inter alia, that she had been treated cruelly by the applicant and had been sent back to her father's place after depriving her of her ornaments and, further, that ever since then the applicant had refused to maintain her. The claim made by Bhanumati was contested by ...
Smt. Jafra Khatoon and anr. Vs. the District Magistrate, Allahabad and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All422
N.D. Ojha, J. 1. This Execution Second Appeal has been filed by the judgment-debtors. The facts relevant for the determination of this appeal are that the District Magistrate of Allahabad respondent No. 1 passed an order under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act No. XXV of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on October 15, 1969 whereby he requisitioned portion of premises No. 34-A. Nawab Yusuf Road which were occupied by Smt. Jafra Khatoon as a tenant. The District Magistrate was further of the opinion that an alternative accommodation within the meaning of the last proviso to Section 3 aforesaid was available for being provided to Smt. Jafra Khatoon being portion of premises No. 179 Allengani, Allahabad. The said accommodation was allotted to Smt. Jafra Khatoon. The order of requisition was challenged by Smt. Jafra Khatoon in a writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ No. 4278 of 1969). The writ petition was however dismissed on February 18, 1970. Since Smt. J...
Ehsanul Haq Vs. Mohd. Umar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All425
S. Malik, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment dated 28-9-1964 of the Additional Civil Judge, Faizabad, dismissing the appellant's appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 17-7-1963 passed by the Additional Munsif Akbarpur, decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for specific performance of a contract entered into between him and defendant No. 1.2. The relevant facts are that defendant-respondent No. 2 who was defendant No. 1 in the trial Court entered into the agreement dated 1.2-4-1958 (Ex. 2) with the plaintiff thereby agreeing to sell to the plaintiff the property in suit which is house property. The property had been declared to be evacuee property and it was duly auctioned as such. The. auction was completed on the 14th of April, 1958. Subsequently, the sale certificate was issued on the 19th of March, 1959 declaring that defendant No. 1 who was the highest bidder had become its owner with effect from the 1st of February, 1959. It appears that after...
Ram Laxman Janki Trust and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR483(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The petitioner, Messrs. Ram Laxman Janki Trust, is the assessee. Aggrieved against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the assessment years 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 the petitioner took the matter to higher authorities. For the assessment year 1952-53 it filed an appeal before the Tribunal. For subsequent assessment years the trust on April 12, 1958, filed revision petitions before the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 33A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In paragraph 7 of the revision petitions it was stated by the assessee that it had filed an appeal for the assessment year 1952-53 before the Tribunal and the revision petitions be taken up for disposal after the decision of that appeal. Presumably for this reason the Commissioner did not take up the revision petitions for disposal till November, 1971. On 6th November, 1971, the assessee filed an application before the Commissioner for th...
Ram Autar Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1096
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J.1. This is a revision by Ram Autar against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, dismissing his appeal and thereby maintaining his conviction under Section 60 of the Excise Act for being in possession of 2 Seers of illicit Charas (Sulpha). The recovery was made by S. I. Banwari Lai Gautam from the possession of the applicant when he raided the house of Chiranji, Excise Contractor, in Mohalla Sarai Hakim. The recovered article was examined by the Excise Inspector, who on the basis of the physical appearance, smell and flame test was of opinion that it was Charas, the possession of which without licence was prohibited under the Excise Act,2. The main point for consideration is whether reliance can be placed upon the opinion of the Excise Inspector and also whether he can be regarded as an expert. This question was considered in detail in Ram Jus v. State, 1970 All LJ 1343. That was a case of Ganja which is not distinct from Charas. The Bench had examine...
Ahmad Khan and ors. Vs. Smt. Shahanshah Jehan Begum
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All529
T.S. Misra, J. 1. This is defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale in respect of 7 annas share in the house in dispute. The material facts are as follows. The plaintiff was the owner of 7 annas share in the house No. 139/14 Hathikhana, Lucknow. She sold her said share in the house to the defendant. On the same day a deed of agreement was also executed whereby the defendant had agreed that if the plaintiff would pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- within four years to her she would reconvey the said share of the plaintiff. One Wajid Ali Khan had also a 6 annas share in the said house and the defendant had originally 3 annas share in the same. Wajid Ali Khan migrated to Pakistan and his 6 annas share in the said property was declared to be evacuee property. The Custodian sold the entire premises as composite property by public auction on 23-8-1963 to the defendant. The sale was confirmed and a sale certificate dated 18th October, 1963 was issued. On 9-...
Subhana and anr. Vs. the Dy. Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All427
Satish Chandra, J.1. This appeal arises out of consolidation proceedings. Mohammad Ahmad respondent No. 3, filed a suit for declaration under Section 63. U.P. Tenancy Act against the appellant Subhanna on the 14th June 1949. The parties filed a compromise. On the basis of that compromise, the suit was decreed on the 18th June, 1949, declaring the appellant Mohammad Ahmad to be khudkasht-holder of the plots in dispute. Subhana made an application for review denying the compromise, but that application was dismissed on 16th July, 1951. On 7th September, 1950 Mohammad Ahmad filed a fresh suit under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act against Subhana on the allegation that he had trespassed over the land in dispute after the passing of the compromise decree. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal it was decreed on 17th September, 1962. In execution of that decree possession was delivered to Mohammad Ahmad on 22nd October, 1962. Subhana, however, filed a second appeal, whi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Basarmal Ratan Dass
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR331(All)
Gulati, J.1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Allahabad Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has submitted the statement of the case.2. The assessee is a partnership firm. Up to the assessment year 1966-67, it was assessed in the status of a registered firm having 7 partners. During the previous year for the assessment year 1967-68, which is the assessment year in dispute, there was a change in the constitution of the firm and a fresh deed of partnership was executed. The assessee applied for a fresh registration and filed along with the application for registration a copy of the partnership deed. The income-tax Officer found that the deed was executed on October 25, 1965, on a stamp paper, which was purchased on November 1, 1965. In his opinion, the partnership agreement was thus void. He, therefore, refused to register the firm. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer. The assessee then appeal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›