Allahabad Court March 1974 Judgments
Sri Ganesh Prasad Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All379
Ojha, J.1. The dispute giving rise to this Special Appeal relates to a house. It belonged to one Dharam Deo Agarwal. It was let out to Jagdish Saran Rastogi, respondent No. 7. The appellant Ganesh Prasad purchased the house from Sri Dharam Deo Agarwal on 29-12-1970. Thereafter, he made an application under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for permission to file a suit against respondent No. 7. The necessary permission was granted on 4-5-1971. It was to be operative after thirty days. The appellant, however, filed a suit for ejectment of respondent No. 7 on 6-5-1971. The parties entered into a compromise on 12-5-1971 and the same day a decree for ejectment was passed on its basis. The decree was put in execution on 21-5-1971 and the appellant obtained possession through the Court Amin on 24-5-1971. Thereafter, an objection was filed by Sri Badri Prasad Tandon, Manager, Thakur Prasad Badri Prasad Junior Girls High School, Moradabad, respondent No...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Chand Ojha Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1974
Reported in: [1974]34STC566(All)
H.N. Seth, J. 1. Amar Chand Ojha has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to challenge the proceedings for recovery of sales tax for the year 1965-66 assessed on the firm Kani Ram Nand Kishore, from him. 2. During the assessment proceedings the petitioner appeared before the Sales Tax Officer and claimed that be was merely a munim of the firm and not a partner therein. This plea of the petitioner was not accepted and the assessment of the firm Kani Ram Nand Kishore was completed In due course. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Sitapar Range. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal, set aside the assessment order and remanded the case for Investigating and enquiring whether the petitioner was in fact' a partner in the firm or not. On remand the Sales Tax Officer made a fresh' assessment, bat did not record any finding on the question whether the petitioner was a partner la the assessee-firm or not...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Mohd. Farooq
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC509(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The question referred to us is : 'whether small nails used as shoe material was taxable as hardware within the meaning of Notification No. ST-1367/X-1045(19)-1960 dated 5th April, 1961?2. A Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Aftab Husain Imdad Husain [1970] 25 S.T.C. 471 has held that mill-stores and hardware were two allied trades, that mill-stores comprised of items like small tools and spare parts of machinery, that the hardware trade refers ordinarily to small items of base metals particularly building materials like nuts, bolts, hinges, latches, curtain railings, rivets, window grills, etc. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sukhmangal Prasaddam Murat Sales Tax Reference No. 276 of 1970 decided on 20th November, 1970 (Allahabad High Court), a Division Bench held that in view of the decision in Aftab Husain's case [1970] 25 S.T.C. 471, nails must be treated as included in the expression 'hardware'.3. In view of these decisions, we answer ...
Tag this Judgment!The Mirzapur Electric Supply Company Limited Vs. the State of Uttar Pr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All29
G.C. Mathur, J. 1. These five writ petitions have been filed by five licensees who had been granted licences under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, for generation and distribution of electrical energy. The U.P. State Electricity Board has served notices upon each one of the licensees to deposit various sums of money as security. These notices have been challenged in these writ petitions. Since several common questions arise in these writ petitions, it will be convenient to dispose them of by one judgment.2. The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, was enacted by the Central Legislature for the rationalisation of the production and supply of electricity and generally for taking measures conducive to electrical development. It, inter alia, provides for the setting up of State Electricity Boards, for the generation of electrical energy by the Boards and for the supply of electrical energy by the Boards to the licensees. All the petitioners are being supplied electrical energy in bulk by the U...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Lakshmipat Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1974
Reported in: [1974]104ITR466(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, Lakshmipat Singhania, the Income-tax Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following question in respect of the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the rent-free accommodation of J. K. House, Calcutta, allowed by the J. K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. to the assessee is a perquisite or benefit obtained in the relevant accounting year within the meaning of Section 2(24)(iv) and its value is assessable in the hands of the assessee for the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 ?'2. The facts leading to the present reference briefly stated are that the assessee, L. Lakshmipat Singhania, was a director of J. K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. in the years 1955-56 and 1956-57. He resigned as a director in the year 1956. Later on he was appointed as a financial adviser to the J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. a...
Tag this Judgment!Nagrat Paints Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1974
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT39(All)
Gulati, J.1. The petitioner is private limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of paints and varnishes at Kanpur. The paints and varnises manufactured by the petitioner company are liable to excise duty under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), under Item No. 14 of the Central Excise Schedule. In the manufacture of these articles the petitioner uses processed vegitable non-essential linseed oil (hereinafter referred to as V.N.E, Oil). This oil is also liable to Central Excise Duty under Item No. 12 of the Centra? Excise Schedule. The oil is first converted into Aikyd Resin (Synthetic Resin) which, in its turn, is utilised for manufacturing paints and varnishes. This Alkyd Resin is also an excisable article. Under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules if duty paid material or component parts are brought in for the manufacture of finished excisable goods, a proforma credit is granted to the extent the duty has already been paid...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1974
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1407
ORDERYashoda Nandan, J.1. This is a revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code. Along with it, on application under Section 561A of the Code has also been filed. Since both, the revision as also the application, are directed against the same order and the prayer made in them is similar, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The material facts giving rise to this revision are that one Gokul Chamar was being prosecuted in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate) Soraon, distcict Allahabad, for an offence punishable under Section 60 of the Excise Act. During the pendency of that case, bail was granted to Gokul and the applicants stood sureties and filed surety-bonds for his appearance in court on various dates fixed for its hearing. On the 16th September, 1968, the accused failed to turn up in court and consequently the learned Magistrate passed an order cancelliag his bail bonds and issuing bailable warrants...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Lakshmipat Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1974
Reported in: [1976]104ITR466(All)
H. N. SETH J. - At the instance of the assessee, Lakshmipat Singhania, the Income-tax Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following question in respect of the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the rent-free accommodation of J. K. House, Calcutta, allowed by the J. K. Jute Mills Co., Ltd., to the assessee is a perquisite or benefit obtained in the relevant accounting year within the meaning of section 2(24)(iv) and its value is assessable in the hands of the assessee for the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 ?'The facts leading to the present reference briefly stated are that the assessee, L. Lakshmipat Singhania, was a director of J. K. Jute Mills Co., Ltd., in the years 1955-56 and 1956-57. He resigned as a director in the year 1956. Later on he was appointed as a financial adviser to the J. K. Jute Mills Co., Ltd...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Dutt Vs. Gopal Dutt
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All316
M.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This is the plaintiff's appeal. The trial Court decreed the suit but the lower appellate Court dismissed it on the ground of limitation.2. The brief facts are these: The plaintiff was appointed a Malguzar or Padhar of the Village Adhyali in the district of Almora in 1960. Formerly one Bal Mukund Sah was the Malguzar of the said village and he died in 1954. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to the possession of the land in dispute on the ground that the said land was Padhanchari land attached to the office of Malguzar. Formerly, the land was held by Bal Mukund as the Malguzar and subsequently, the plaintiff on his appointment to the said office became entitled, to the same. The defendants-respondents were alleged to have been inducted into possession by Bal Mukund and to have been in permissive possession from the latter. With his appointment as the Malguzar in 1960, the plaintiff claimed to have become entitled to the possession of the land in dispute but as the ...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Appellate Tribunal Vs. Madan Mohan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1974
Reported in: [1979]119ITR781(All)
1. The HUF consisting of L. Damodar Das (karta and his only son. Madan Mohan) owned a house in Kachcha Katra, Shahjahanpur. This was occupied by Lala Damodar Das for residential purposes. Lala Damodar Das died on April 15, 1967. The Assistant CED valued the house at Rs. 58,500. He added a half share (Rs. 29,250) in this house belonging to the son under Section 34(1)(c) of the E.D. Act for rate purposes.2. On appeal, the Zonal Appellate Controller deleted this inclusion on the ground that the residential house was totally exempt under Clause (n) of Section 33(1) of the Act.3. The department went up in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the exemption given by Clause (c) of Section 34(1) was total. In other words, the value of the residential house is not only excluded from the estate duty but is also excluded for the purposes of determining estate duty. Clause (c)of Section 34(1) deals with properties specifically excluded by Clause (a). Since one residential house is specifi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »