Allahabad Court April 1973 Judgments
Radha Krishna Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ430
K.B. Srivastava, J.1. The petitioner Radha Krishna was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i). Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for contravention of Section 7(i) of that Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. His appeal against that conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Third Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur. This revision before this Court, has arisen in the, said circumstances, with the prayer that either the conviction be set aside as the commission of the crime was not established, or the sentence, at any rate, should be reduced.2. A learned Single Judge issued a notice for enhancement of the 'sentence on the ground that the minimum punishment prescribed by Section 16 is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months and with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1000/- and consequently, the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate, and confirm...
Tag this Judgment!Basti Ram Roop Chand Vs. Radhey Shyam Gulab Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All499
ORDERT.S. Misra, J. 1. This revisional application is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Kanpur. It has arisen in the following circumstances: The plaintiff-opposite party commenced an action against the defendant-applicant and Union of India for a decree of Rs. 13,485.12 together with pendente lite and future interest. Both the defendants have filed separate written statements contesting the suit. An issue relating the jurisdiction of the court was framed. The defendant made an application praying that the said issue be tried as a preliminary issue. This application was opposed by the plaintiff. The Trial Courthaving found that in a suit for recovery of damages on account of breach of contract the question of jurisdiction was a mixed question of law and fact, did not consider it expedient to try the issue as a preliminary issue and consequently rejected the application of the defendant. Against that decision the defendant went up in revision before the Distri...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Laxmi Sugar and Oil Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1973
Reported in: [1977]106ITR913(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a limited company. Daring the assessment year 1963-64, under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, a question arose with regard to the computation of its capital. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 8,16,000 as its capital for purposes of determining the standard deduction. The Government of India passed the Sugarcane Control Order, 1955, which was amended from time to time. Under that Order the Government fixed the minimum price of sugarcane payable by the sugar mills to the sugarcane growers on the understanding that the cane growers would be duly compensated by the proportionate share in the excess price of sugar realised by the mills. For this purpose the Government issued a notification on September 23, 1958, Clause 3(i) whereof made the sugar mills liable for the additional price payable to cane growers in certain circumstances set out therein and also prescribed the formula for wor...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Virmani Industries (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR461(All)
Gulati, J. 1. The assessee is a private limited company. Up to the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 1956-57, the assessee was carrying on a business of manufacture of soap and oil. This business was stopped in 1955. The factory thereafter used to be let out on hire. In the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 1965-66, which is the year in dispute the assessee started a business of manufacture of steel pipes and a part of the old machinery used for the manufacture of soap and oil was utilised in the new business. In the year 1956-57, which was the last year of the business of manufacture of soap and oil, the Income-tax Officer had worked out depreciation, which could not be fully set off against the profits, and, as such, a part of the depreciation was left unabsorbed. In the assessment year in dispute the assessee claimed that the unabsorbed depreciation to the extent that it pertained to the old machinery utilised in the new business should be brought forward a...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra and ors. Vs. Tulshi Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All88
Jagmohan Lal, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage deed dated 14-6-1907 filed by the plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 and 2. This mortgage was executed by Salik Ram and Chotey Lal in favour of Mahadeo Prasad and others. The defendant-appellants as well as the defendant-respondents Nos. 3 to 5 are the successors of the original mortgagees. The plaintiff-respondents are admittedly the successors of Salik Ram, one of the two mortgagors. They claimed themselves to be the successors of the other co-mortgagor Chotey Lal also, though this fact was disputed by the defendants.2. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs were the successors of Chotey Lal also and as such they were entitled to maintainthis suit for redemption of the entire mortgaged property.3. The lower appellate Court without reversing this finding of fact of the trial Court sidertracked this issue as it was of the opinion that even if the plaintiffs are held to be successors of Salik Ram ...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Bhushan Lal Bansal Vs. Nathu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All505
N.D. Ojha, J.1. The appellant is the owner of an accommodation of which the respondent No. 1 is a tenant. The appellant made an application for permission under Section 3 of U. P. Act in of 1947 to file a suit for ejectment of respondent No. 1. The permission was refused by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer but on a revision having been filed by the appellant, the Commissioner allowed the application and granted the necessary permission. This order was upheld by the State Government under Section 7-F of the aforesaid Act. The respondent No. 1 instituted a writ petition in this Court which has been allowed by a learned Single Judge on the ground that neither the Commissioner nor the State Government compared the needs of the landlord and the tenant as required of them and consequently their orders were vitiated. The landlord has now filed this special appeal.2. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to satisfy us that either the Commissioner or the State Government had ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Chunni Lal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ13
ORDERB.D. Gupta, J.1. The applicant Chunni Lal has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the sentence being rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine in a sum of Rs. 1,000/-.2. The prosecution case, which, in the opinion of the courts below, stood established, was that on the morning of 26th September, 1969, the applicant sold Baloosahi in a fair held within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sikandra in the district of Kanpur, which, on analysis by the Public Analyst, was found Coloured with a coal-tar dye not permitted for use in articles of food meant for human consumption.3. The principal contention raised before me is that in the present case the prosecution failed to establish the necessary consent for prosecution of the applicant as required by Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at some length and scrutinis...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Agrimal Raja Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC416(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow.2. An assessment was made against the assessee for the year 1958-59 under Section 7 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act on its turnover of bullion and ornaments. Subsequently, the Sales Tax Officer received information that during the assessment year in question the assessee had sold foodgrains through a commission agent and finding that such turnover had not been included in the assessment, he reopened the assessment by a notice under Section 21 of the Act which was served upon the assessee on 21st March, 1963. An ex parte assessment was made on 27th March, 1963. The assessee appealed against the assessment order as well as made an application under Section 30 for setting aside the ex parte assessment order and for making a fresh assessment. The assessee's appeal was not entertained by the appellate authority on the ground that the memorandum of app...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Das Shyam Sunder Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1973
Reported in: [1974]93ITR27(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner, Messrs. Thakur Das Shy am Sunder, prays for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Lucknow, dated 15th of January, 1972. 2. The petitioner is a commission agent carrying on its business in Shahjahanpur, It claims that in the district of Shahjahanpur there is a long standing custom according to which the commission agents charge onevery transaction of sale of goods worth Rs. 100, a sum of 15 paise from the person to whom goods are sold and 10 paise from the person whose goods are sold through them as dharmada. This charge is over and above the commission which a commission agent is entitled to receive from both the parties. Dharmada so collected is a customary levy which is realised and credited by the commission agent in a separate account known as dharmada account. This amount is held by them on trust to be utilised specifically and exclusi...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC252(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This and the connected case are references Under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act relating to the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 respectively. The question of.law referred for our opinion is common in both the cases. Hence the judgment in this case shall govern the connected case also.2. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and sale of glass sheets. There is no dispute about the quantum of turnover. The dispute relates to the rate of tax at which the turnover of glass sheets would be taxable. The assessee's contention was that glass sheets were an unclassified item and as such the* rate of 2 per cent prescribed by the charging Section 3 was applicable to its turnover. The Sales Tax Officer, on the other hand, held that glass sheets were 'glasswares' and as such were covered by Notification No. S.T. 905/X dated 31st March, 1956, issued Under Section 3-A and the turnover of glass sheets would be taxable at the rate of 7 per cent till 30th September, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »