Allahabad Court May 1973 Judgments
Parsidh NaraIn Pandey Vs. Kalapnath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All523
K.N. Seth, J. 1. The following question has been referred to this Bench for its opinion:-- 'Is Section 6 of U. P. Act No. 37 of 1972 ultra vires of the Constitution being violative of Article 14 thereof?'2. Prior to its amendment by Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act (Act No. 37 of 1972), Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was amendedby U. P. Act 14 of 1970. Section 3 of the aforesaid Act provided that for the words 'High Court' wherever occurring in Section 115, the words 'High Court or District Court' shall be substituted, and that at the end the following proviso shall be inserted: 'Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed to empower the District Court to call for the record of any case arising out of an original suit of the value of twenty thousand rupees or above.'3. U. P. Act 37 of 1972 passed by the State Legislature received the assent of the President of India on 12-9-1972 and was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 16-9-1972. A no...
Tag this Judgment!The State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Dr. Atma Ram Chauhan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All495
1. The State of Uttar Pradesh and the authorities of Medical Health Services have come up in appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge quashing an order passed by the Civil Surgeon, Saharanpur on 30th May, 1968. By this order the Civil Surgeon directed all the Medical Officers in-charge of Zila Parishad Dispensaries in the district of Saharanpur that they were not authorised to do Medico-legal work at the dispensary as they were not fully qualified for this work.2. It is not disputed that all the Medical Officers of the Zila Parishad Dispensaries, who are respondents before us, being auryeda graduates were registered medical practitioners within meaning of Indian Medicine Act, 1939. Section 39(4) of that Act provides:'39 (1) ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......(4) A registered practitioner shall be entitled to(a) sign or authenticate a birth or death certificate required by any law or rule to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner;(b) sign ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Murty Gupta Vs. Suresh Chandra Agrawal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All582
N.D. Ojha, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from an accommodation. The suit was filed on various grounds mentioned in Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, including the ground that the defendant had made material alterations in the accommodation. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff on the last mentioned ground, viz., that the appellant had made material alterations in the accommodation and, consequently, decreed the suit for ejectment. The Lower Appellate Court agreed with the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. He has now come up in second appeal. The plaintiff-respondent purchased the accommodation by a sale deed dated May 30, 1966. In regard to the constructions, which according to him had the effect of making material alterations in the accommodation, the case of the plaintiff was that these constructions had been made by the appellant in 1967, i.e., afte...
Tag this Judgment!Pratapveer Kakkar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR301(All)
Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking the opinion of this court on the following question : ' Whether the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was right in holding that the salary received by the assessee was the income of the Hindu joint family of which the assessee was the kerta, and not his individual income '2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that a supplementary statement of the case should be called for from the Tribunal 3. The assessee is a director of a company which took over the business of a joint family of which the assessee was the karta. In the articles of association of the company there is a provision that if any director devotes extra time to the affairs of the company he would be entitled to additional remuneration. Under that clause, a sum of Rs. 4,500 was paid by the company to the assessee by way of remuneration. The Income-tax Officer treated this a...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sumaria Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ435
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. This application in revision arises out of the conviction of the accused-applicant for an offence under Section 13(1) of the Roadside Land Control Act. The Sub-divisional Magistrate. Phulpur by his order dated 9-6-1970 convicted Smt. Sumaria under the aforesaid Act and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- or in default to undergo two months R. I. A further direction was given that she shall remove construction illegally made by her within three months from the date of the order.2. Aggrieved thereby Smt. Sumaria filed an appeal before the I Temporary Sessions Judge, Allahabad. The appeal was dismissed on 29-1-1971. Hence this revision.3. It appears that a complaint was made by the Assistant Engineer P. W. D. containing allegations that Smt. Sumaria had built a pakka house without the sanction of the District Magistrate on the Allahabad Gorakhpur road within the limits of village Sahson between mile 12. furtons 7, about 31 feet from the centre of the road towar...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prasad Rai Vs. Raghunath Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All72
J.S. Trivedi, J. 1. This defendant's Second Civil Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge Mohanlalganj, Lucknow dismissing the appeal. The defendant-appellant had been in occupation of a house under an allotment order of the year 1953. The owner of the house at that time was Jamuna Prasad. Subsequently sometime in the year 1961 the heirs of Jamuna Prasad transferred the house to Sri Sampat and Smt. Makhana. On the death of Sampat, Smt, Makhana continued to be the owner of the house. On 7-6-1965 Smt. Makhana executed a will in favour of Raj Dei. Smt. Makhana died on 25-6-65. Raj Dei sold the house to the plaintiffs in November 1966. Thereafter in May 1967 plaintiff-respondent sent a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act demanding rent and terminating the tenancy. The defendant-appellant replied to the notice and disputed the title of the plaintiff and contended that after the death of Smt. Makhana he nas been the tenant of Rameshwar, a ne...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Prasad and anr. Vs. Shiv Pal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All313
1. Upon a difference of opinion between Satish Chandra, J., and N. D. Ojha, J., the following question has been referred to me:'Whether this appeal is maintainable?'2. The question has arisen in the following circumstances:--3. The appellants filed a suit in the revenue Court under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for a declaration of their title to certain plots of land and for possession thereof. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The judgment and the decree of the trial Court were upheld in appeal and in second appeal. The appellants then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court. This was done in 1970. The writ petition was substantially dismissed by a learned Single Judge on January 17, 1973. This special appeal was filed on March 2, 1973.4. While the writ petition was pending the U. P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972 (U. P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1972) was promulgated by the Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Brijlal Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1973
Reported in: [1974]94ITR88(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that payment at the rate of 10% received as clerkage by the assessee as a result of contract between him and the client as a senior advocate on the Rolls of the Bar Council did not form part of his income ?'2. The question relates to the assessment year 1969-70. The assessee is practising as a senior advocate, generally before this court. He returned gross professional income at Rs. 80,745. He claimed that 10% of this amount, namely, Rs. 8,074.50, was received in addition by him for being paid as clerkage to his clerical establishment and was not assessable as his income. The Income-tax Officer held that the clerkage is received by the assessee and then paid to the clerks and so it was not a case of diversion at source but appropriation only. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Samarjut Singh Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All82
ORDERPrem Prakash, J.1. These are five connected petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The relevant facts, shortly stated, are as follows: Bhaiya Durga Prasad Singh, the Zamindar of village Harbaspur, gave the village on theka to Ram Awadh, father of opposite party No. 4, Yatindra Nath. The Thekadar continued in possession after the expiry of theka; Bhaiya Durga Prasad Singh filed a suit for ejectment under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act against opposite party No. 4, his mother, Ram Kali; and his uncle, Teerath Ram, which was decreed by the Court of Civil Judge, Gonda on 30th September, 1947. In execution of the decree possession was obtained by the decree-holder over specific plots (which are in dispute), on 27th June, 1948. Against the judgment and decree dated 30th September, 1947 an appeal filed in the High Court was pending on the date of vesting. Under Rule 4 (2) (v) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Rules, 1952 the proceedings in the High Court...
Tag this Judgment!Vidyapat Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1973
Reported in: [1977]107ITR533(All)
Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The assessee, Sri Gopal Krishna Singhania, was assessed to tax for the year 1945-46 on September 30, 1948, on a total income of Rs. 1,07,247. The assessment was set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and a fresh assessment thereafter was made on February 25, 1963, on a total income of Rs. 90,532. In this assessment the Income-tax Officer charged interest under Section 18A(6)/18A(8), although the same was not charged in the original assessment. The assessee filed an appeal against the levy of interest. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that noappeal lay against the levy of interest under Section 18A(6) and dismissed the appeal as incompetent. On second appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and dismissed the appeal. At the instance of the assessee, the T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »