Allahabad Court March 1973 Judgments
Shabbir Hasan Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All99
K.N. Seth, J. 1. The learned Civil Judge, Budaun, under the proviso to Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:-- 'Whether provisions of Section 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 are viola-tive of Article 14 of the Constitution.'2. Shabbir Hasan Khan brought a suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from selling and auctioning the movable properties detailed in annexure 'A' of the plaint and from taking any coercive action against the plaintiff for recovery of excise duty etc. It was alleged that the plaintiff cultivated tobacco in the year 1965-66 and the produce was stored by him in a godown. The tobacco got somewhat deteriorated and the plaintiff applied to the Central Excise Department for its disposal. The application remained pending for a long time. The Deputy Superintendent, Central Excise Department at Budaun, harboured some grudge against the plaintiff and maliciously reported that he h...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pari Vs. Sita Ram Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All571
T.S. Misra, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal which arose in the following circumstances. Sita Ram defendant had commenced an action for partition of the property in suit in the Court of Munsif, Deoria, being suit No. 3171 of 1957 -- Sita Ram v. Shital Pandey and others. The present plaintiff appellant was also made a party to that suit alleging that Sita Ram had l/3rd share in it. That suit was decreed. On appeal the decree passed in that suit was confirmed. The present plaintiff then commenced another action which has given rise to this appeal for cancellation of the decree passed in the suitNo. 3171 of 1957 and the appellate decree dated 21st August, 1961, inter alia, on the grounds that he was a minor and the appointment of the alleged guardian in the suit No. 3171 of 1957 by the Court was illegal and without jurisdiction. He contended that the defendant No. 4 was appointed his guardian-ad-litem but he did not take proper defence in the case nor did he produce necessary evidence on...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1414
ORDERK.B. Sarivastava, J.1. This revision arises out of proceedings under Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure. The opposite party Piarey Lai instituted proceedings under Section 107,, Code, of Criminal -Procedure against the Petitioner Ram Lal. in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Biswan, in the district of Sitapur. The parties reside at Buddhi-purwa hamlet of Ataura, Police Station Thangaon in that district. Admittedly, Ataura village falls within the territorial .jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Sidhauli. in that district and not within the limits of the jurisdiction of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Biswan. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Biswan. therefore, submitted a report to the District Magistrate for the transfer of the case from his Court to that of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sidhauli. The District Magistrate, however, ordered that there was no necessity for a transfer and he was specially authorising hitn (the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Biswan,) to...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Majid Vs. Harbansh Chaube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All129
T.S. Misra, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant. It arises in the following circumstances. 2. A dacoity took place at the house of Ali Raza in village Bankata, P.S. Raunapar in the night of July 21/22. 1949. The plaintiff was prosecuted in that case under Section 412, Indian Penal Code for being found in possession of a 'hansuli' alleged to be belonging to Ali Raza on the charge-sheet submitted by the defendant No. 1 against him. The defendant No. 1 submitted a search memo in the capacity of Station Officer, P.S. Raunapar. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were search witnesses. The plaintiff was ultimately acquitted by the Court of Session on 9th October, 1950. Thereafter the plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant No. 1 under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code, which was, however, returned refused by the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff thereupon filed a suit for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution claiming a sum of Rs. 1000.00 from the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. It was allege...
Tag this Judgment!Sumer Chand Pati Ram and ors. Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All126
ORDERH.N. Seth, J. 1. The 21 petitioners of this case are the persons who carry on then business as dealers and Commission Agents in village Ghiror, district Mainpuri. On 25th of January, 1972, the State Government issued a Notification No. 376/XXI-B-1200(156)-69, under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964 (U. P. Act 25 of 1964), declaring its intention to regulate, sale and purchase of specified agricultural produce in the area mentioned in that notification. No one filed any objection against the aforesaid proposal. Consequently, by means of Notification No. H-1633/XII-B-1200(118)-69, dated 21-3-1972, issued under Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, the entire area of Nyaya Panchayat Circle Ghiror, District Mainpuri was declared as Ghiror Market Area. This notification was followed by a notification dated April 22, 1972, declaring the area of Gram Sabha Ghiror and Town Area Ghiror as the principal and sub-market yards, under Section 7 of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Bimal Kumar JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1973
Reported in: [1974]93ITR225(All)
Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ').2. The assessee, Bimal Kumar Jain, was a director and the general manger of a company, known as Jain Glass Works Private Ltd., Firozabad. For the assessment year 1964-65 he filed two returns, one in the status of a Hindu undivided family showing an income of Rs. 29,398 and the other in his individual capacity showing an income of Rs. 26,048. This amount of Rs. 26,048 was received by him from the company by way of remuneration. Thus, the assessee put forward the claim that the income which he had received from the company by way of remuneration should not be includedin the income received by his family from dividends on shares held in the company. This claim of the assessee was rejected by the Income-tax Officer holding that the entire income was to be assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family. His appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-t...
Tag this Judgment!Desh Raj Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1415
ORDERK.B. Srivastava, J.1. The petitioners in these five revisions were prosecuted separately for applying false trade marks, trade descriptions and for selling goods to which a false trade mark or false trade description had been applied, that is to say. for offences punishable under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. They pleaded that their prosecutions were barred by limitation under Section 92 of that Act. The learned Additional City Magistrate, Lucknow, who held the trials accepted that plea and consequently ordered their acquittal. The State filed Criminal Appeals Nos. 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64 of 1967 against those orders of acquittal. The said five appeals were allowed by this Court and the cases were remanded for decision according to law. While doing so. this Court made the following observation :I am. therefore, of the opinion ijhat in any view of the matter the prosecution was not barred by limitation and the Magistrate was in error in coming to a ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kishan Devi Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation, U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All654
Swarup, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The name of Smt. Kishan Devi, appellant, was entered in the basic year in the consolidation records. Objections were filed by respondents 5, 6 and 7 to the effect that they were Sirdars and the name of Kishan Devi was wrongly entered. The objections were allowed by the consolidation authorities and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. Revision filed by the appellant was also dismissed Appellant then filed the Writ Petition. The Writ petition was dismissed. 3. The appellant had filed suit No. 585 of 1956 in the Civil Court. The suit was decreed on 3rd January 1957 on the basis of a compromise and it was decided through the compromise decree that Smt. Kishan Devi was the Sirdar in possession of the land in dispute. Subsequently, Smt. Mathuri, from whom respondents 5, 6 and 7 are claiming, filed suit No. 85 of 1957 for cancellation of ...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanand Sutwala Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR119(All)
Ojha, J.1. The following question of law has been referred for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the share income of Sri Gajanand Sutwala from the partnership firm of M/s. Ganesh Prasad Dalal for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 was assessable as the income of the assessee-Hindu undivided family ?'2. The assessee, Sri Gajanand Sutwala, is a Hindu undivided family. Up to the year 1961-62 the assessment used to be made on the assessee in the status of an individual inasmuch as he was the sole surviving coparcener. On April 23, 1961, Sri Gajanand Sutwala, however, adopted Sri Hemant Kumar as his son and his status thereafter for purposes of assessment has been accepted to be that of a Hindu undivided family. Sri Gajanand Sutwala was a partner in a firm known as M/s. Ganesh Prasad Dalai as a representative of the Hindu undivided family. The firm, Ganesh Pra...
Tag this Judgment!Kr. Wasiq Ali Vs. the Director of Consolidation, Agra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All46
N.D. Ojha, J. 1. This special appeal arises out of a dispute in regard to plot No. 867 situate in village Silla Vishanpur, Pergana Koil, district Aligarh. When Consolidation proceedings started in the village aforesaid, the plot stood recorded inter alia in the names of the appellant and respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 filed an objection asserting that the appellant had no right in the plot and that his name may be expunged. This objection was allowed by the Consolidation Officer, but on appeal by the appellant it was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. On second appeal by respondent No. 4, the Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and restored that of the Consolidation Officer. A revision filed by the appellant was ordered to be dismissed by the Commissioner on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of the amendment of the Consolidation of Holdings Act in 1963. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed by ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »