Allahabad Court March 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.
Kashi Nath Bhatt and ors. Vs. Atma Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All548
ORDERN.D. Ojha, J. 1. Atma Ram filed a suit for partition of a dwelling house and land appurtenant thereto on November 1, 1950. He claimed one third share being a purchaser from the co-sharer of that share. The suit was contested, inter alia on the ground that the defendants were the owners of the remaining two third share and were entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 (Act 4 of 1893). The suit was decreed in June 1959. It appears that the benefit of Section 4 of the Partition Act was not given to the defendants. On appeal filed by them that benefit was given by the appellate Court on April 16, 1960. The decree passed on April 16, 1960 contained a direction to the effect that the valuation of the plaintiff's share which is one third in the property in suit be determined while preparing such final decree. Atma Ram filed a second appeal in this Court which was dismissed on October 17, 1966. A review petition filed by him was dismissed on August 22, 1968. Thereaf...
Har Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Swarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All390
Kirty, J.1. Before this Bench, constituted by the learned Chief Justice, following questions fall for consideration and answer:--(1) Will Civil Revisions arising out of suits of the value of less than twenty thousand rupees or arising out of other proceedings filed in this Court before the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act No. 37 of 1972 came into force, not lie here and will have to be sent to the District Courts?(2) In case the order sought to be revised is passed by a District Judge or any officer exercising the powers of District Judge in an appeal or revision arising out of an original suit of the value of less than twenty thousand rupees, where will a revision lie, if at all?(3) Does no revision lie from proceedings other than original suits ?2. The above questions have arisen on account of the amendment in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) made by Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972. This Act, passed by the Sta...
Gaon Sabha, Jhinjhak Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All403
ORDERR.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Gaon Sabha Jhinjhak through its pradhan Shri Asharfi Lal.2. Jhinjhak is a town area, which was created by a Notification No. 60/XI-235-E, dated January 11, 1916 under Section 3 of the U.P. Town Areas Act. On November 17, 1972, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh issued another notification amending the schedule to the aforesaid Notification extending the territorial jurisdiction of the town area. This Notification of November 17, 1972 has been challenged in this petition.3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the additional area, sought to be included in the limits of the town area, vested in the petitioner Gaon Sabha and that area could not be taken away under the U.P. Town Areas Act without abolishing the Gaon Sabha. There is no force in this contention. A Gaon Sabha is a creature of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Section 8 of that Act specifically provides that 'if the whole of the area of Gaon S...
Rupo Devi and anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All404
ORDERHari Swarup, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision against the order passed in appeal dismissing the plantiffs appeal. The plaintiff instituted a suit inter alia for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants Nos. 1 to 13 from obtaining possession from defendant No. 17 who was a supurdar appointed by the Criminal Courts in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. and for restraining the defendant No. 17 from delivering the possession of the property to the defendants Nos. 1 to 13. A prayer for the issue of permanent injunction in similar terms was moved by the plaintiff. This application was dismissed by the trial Court. Against that order the plaintiff went up in appeal. The appellate Court has held that the plaintiff had no prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was not in favour of granting the injunction.2. The supurdar had been appointed by the Criminal Court and the possession of supurdar was the possession of the Criminal Court....
Hari Shankar Vs. Narendra Pratap Bahadur Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All561
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff respondents Nos. 1 to 7 for recovery of their half share in the rent realised by the defendant-appellant from the defendant-respondents Nos. 8 to 16, to whom certain shops had been let out. The history, as regards these shops, was that before they had been constructed the plaintiffs-respondents were the Zemindars of this site. Some time before the abolition of the Zamindari. that is on 24-9-1951, the defendant-appellant approached the Zamindars and requested them to give that land to him for construction of the shops. The Zamindars accepted this request subject to certain terms which were embodied in a written agreement dated 24-9-1951 executed between them. One of the terms was that on this Parti land the defendant-appellant would construct the shops at his own expense but the plan of construction shall be approved by both the parties. After the shops had been constructed they would be let out with the consent of both t...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Laxman Sugar Mills, Mohiuddinpu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All532; [1973]90ITR73(All)
Mathur, Ag. C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (J) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, made by the Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It relates to the assessment year 1957-58. The Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had made a similar reference in respect of the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 which was answered by this Court in Commr. of Income-tax, U. P. v. Ram Laxman Sugai Mills : [1970]76ITR123(All) .2. Considering that the question of law involved is the same and the reference pertains to the same assessee as in the earlier reference, it is not necessary to give the facts of the case in detail. It can simply be mentioned that the assessee. M/s. Ram Laxman Sugar Mills, Mohiuddinpur, is a firm manufacturing sugar; owning mills at Mohiuddinpur in the district of Meerut, The firm comprises of two groups of partners. On account of certain differences between the partners the Government of India was compelled to take action under Section 3(4) of the E...
Sir Shadi Lal and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR453(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', has referred the following questions for our opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessments for the years 1954-55, 1960-61 and 1961-62 were validly reopened under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 24(1)(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were applicable ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure which was not allowed while completing the original assessments could be considered for allowance in the course of assessments reopened under Section 147(a)?' 2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1954-55, 1960-61 and 1961-62 in respect of a Hindu undivided family, which owns immovable properties and shares in limited companies. The assessee owned a house in Delhi. This house was demised to the Chinese Embassy by a deed dated 30th May...
Sahadeo Vs. Shanta Prasad Misra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All48
ORDERHari Swarup, J. 1. This civil revision has been filed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal against the order of the trial Court dismissing the defendant's application for deciding the suit in terms of an alleged compromise. In the suit, an application (20-C) was moved on 7-9-1970 by the parties stating that talks of compromise were going on between the parties and they had already appointed an arbitrator (Panch). It was further stated that as the arbitrator was likely to take some time in giving his award the hearing of the case be adjourned and later on the suit may be decided in terms of the award to be given by the arbitrators (Panchon). On 20-10-1970 the defendant moved an application with a prayer that the suit may be decided in terms of the award given by the arbitrators. The plaintiff filed objections to the award and contended, inter alia, that the arbitrators had mis-conducted themselves as well as the proceedings. When the matte...
The General Electric Company of India Ltd. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC108(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. The petitioner is a limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of electrical goods. It has branches all over India with its head office at Calcutta. It has a zonal office at Kanpur and a factory at Naini in Allahabad. Its turnover of Kanpur and Naini was assessed to tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector IV, Kanpur. For the assessment year 1966-67, the petitioner's turnover of these two places was assessed at Rs. 4,09,82,067.40 by an assessment order dated 21st February, 1970. Thereafter, the petitioner received a notice dated 22nd March, 1971, under Section 21 of the Act for the aforesaid assessment year. After several hearings the Sales Tax Officer framed a supplementary assessment estimating the escaped turnover at Rs. 6 lacs and levying an additional tax of Rs. 51,000. This assessment order has been challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. From a perusal of the impugned assessment order i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›