Allahabad Court April 1974 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.
Pitamber Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ948
ORDERT.S. Misra, J.1. The case of the prosecution was that in the morning of 10th November, 1970, Abid Nasir- Khan, Excise Inspector, with the help of S. I. Shabbia; Husain of P. S. Ujhani and other members of the public made a search of the house of Pitamber, the applicant, as a result whereof a Canister containing about 23 bottles of illicit liquor was found in possession of Pitamber, Pitamber was accordingly charged for having possessed one tin containing about 23 bottles #f liquor which on test was found to be Mlicit liquor and thereby committed an ffence under Section 60 (a) of the tJ. P. Excise Act. The applicant denied the case of the prosecution, and pleaded that he was not guilty. The prosecution examined Abid Nasir Khan, Excise Inspector (P. W. 1) and Shabbir Mussain (P. W. 2). The prosecution also liled four affidavits of Ashik Husain, Radhey Sham, Mauji Lai and Mohammad Akram. Pitamber examined one witness, namely, Kalyan Das in defence. The learned Magistrate having found ...
Abdul Rashid Vs. Sri Sitaramji Maharaj Brajman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All275
M. N. Shukla, J.1. On account of divergence of opinion between two Division Bench decisions of this Court in Narain Tewari v. Brij Narain : AIR1931All326 and Lalji v. Gajadhar : AIR1962All431 this Execution Second Appeal filed by a judgment-debtor had been referred to a Full Bench.2. The short facts of the case are that the respondent-decree-holder obtained a compromise decree on 27-1-1954 for possession over the plots in dispute after demolition of certain constructions said to have been raised by the judgment-debtor. The compromise decree provided that the judgment-debtor would remove the constructions and deliver possession of the property to the decree-holder after the latter served him with a notice giving him two months' time to remove the constructions. According to the compromise decree the decree-holder could serve notice upon the judgment-debtor whenever the former desired to make his own constructions over the said land. It was further provided in the compromise decree that ...
SukhdIn Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All450
ORDERO.P. Trivedi, J.1. Sukhdin has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming 1/3rd share in certain land situate in the district of Rae Bareli. The petition arises out of consolidation proceedings. In the basic year petitioner's name alone was recorded against this land. Admittedly the petitioner Sukhdin and Ram Kumar (opposite party No. 3), Ram Swaroop (opposite party No. 4), Ram Shankar (opposite party No. 5), Ram Nath, (opposite party No. 6), Ram Ratan (opposite party No. 7) and Smt. Sundara (opposite party No. 8) belong to the same family. At the time of field-to-field partal opposite parties 3 to 7 were reported to be co-tenants of the disputed khata. The mistake was accordingly entered in C. H. Form 5 issued on 29-5-66. There was a compromise (Annexure A to the counter-affidavit) before the Assistant Consolidation Officer to which the petitioner Sukhdin and opposite parties 3 to 8 were signatories. By this compromise it was agreed that Sukhdin s...
Central Distillary and Chemical Works Vs. Inspector of Central Excise ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1974
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT194(All)
K.B. Asthana, J.1. This is a petitioner's appeal against an order passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing, its writ petition for quashing of a demand for payment of excise duty and the appellate order confirming the said demand by the Central Excise Authorities. The learned Single Judge held that the alcohol manufactured by the petitioner was covered by the definition of 'motor spirit' under Item 6 (ii) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner appellant in support of the appeal by its learned counsel was that the learned Single Judge fell in error in applying the definition of 'motor spirit' to the product manufactured by the petitioner on erroneous or misappreciation of the facts. His further contention was that in decision of the appeal the Appellate Authority did not apply its mind in arriving at a finding, as was its duty, before rejecting the appeal and the appellate order, a copy of which is annexe...
Mahabir Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All239
K.B. Asthana, J. 1. In the above three Special Appeals and six writ petitions which have been consolidated for hearing, the common controversy involved concerns the validity of orders of the Additional Price Fixation Authority and appellate orders of the Central Government determining the additional price for sugarcane purchased by the appellants and the petitioners from the sugarcane growers and the Co-operative Societies of the sugarcane growers. The Special Appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judges substantially dismissing the writ petitions but striking down the direction for payment of interest. Since in the aforesaid writ petitions similar questions are involved they have also been directed to be heard and decided by the Division Bench.2. The learned Single Judge in his judgment in Mahabir Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd, v. Union of India and another under appeal has given a detailed history of the developments for linking the price of sugarcane ...
Ram Dayal Chhotey Lal Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1974
Reported in: [1974]34STC225(All)
H.N. Seth, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against a notice dated 4th September, 1973, issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Shahjahanpur Circle, requiring the petitioner to show cause why penalty under Section 15-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, be not imposed.2. The petitioner, M/s. Ram Dayal Chhotey Lal, is a partnership-firm registered under the U. P. Sales Tax Act and deals in iron, steel, cement and iron goods. The dispute in this case is about an alleged deliberate concealment by the petitioner of its turnover and furnishing of wrong particulars in its return for the assessment year 1970-71. For the assessment year in question, the petitioner submitted tax return declaring its gross and taxable turnovers at Rs. 3,03,632.52 and Rs. 2,39,101.13 respectively. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the assessee's books and made a best judgment assessment determining its taxable turnover as Rs. 5,30,000 on which the tax amounting to Rs. 19,925.00 was payab...
Nemi Chand Vimal Chand Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1974
Reported in: [1974]34STC562(All)
H.N. Seth, J. 1. The assessee in these two cases is a partnership-firm doing sarrafa business in the city of Agra in the name and style Messrs. Nemi Chand Vimal Chand, Agra.2. At the time of regular assessment for the years 1064-65 and 1965-66 the Sales Tax Officer found that the assessee's books have been properly maintained. Accordingly after making some minor adjustments he assessed the firm on the basis of the turnover disclosed in its returns. The Commissioner of Sales Tax took the matter up in revision before the Judge (Revisions) and prayed that the case be sent back to the Sales Tax Officer for making fresh assessment as the turnover determined by him was inadequate. According to him, the Sales Tax Officer should have taken into consideration the past record of the firm as also its stock position and the investment made by it, before determining its taxable turnover for the years in question. The Judge (Revisions) found that the past record of the assessee may not be wholly rel...
Hukam Chand and anr. Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1974
Reported in: [1983]54STC43(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. For the assessment year 1969-70, the Sales Tax Officer, Roorkee, passed an assessment order dated 30th May, 1970. It appears that it was served on the assessee on 27th June, 1970. Consequently the assessee applied for rectification under Section 22 of the Act. This application was allowed and by an order dated 9th November, 1971, the original order of assessment was rectified and the turnover of the assessee was reduced to Rs. 8,21,452.24 and the quantum of tax to Rs. 82.145.30. It may be mentioned here that the original tax demand was in the sum of Rs. 1,08,500.00. In the order of rectification the Sales Tax Officer mentioned that the assessee had already paid Rs. 14 and therefore, he should deposit the balance tax amounting to Rs. 82,131.30 within 30 days of the receipt of this order and that the original notice of demand shall be deemed to have been modified accordingly. The rectification order was served on the assessee on 26th November, 1971.2. The assessee ch...
Seth Loonkaran Sethiya Vs. Ivan E. John and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All113
Mehrotra, J.1. This is the plaintiff's appeal against the order of the trial Court directing the Receiver to pay a sum of Rs. 58,295.49 to the defendant-respondent No. 5/2, Nirmal Kumar Patni, The plaintiff has prepared and produced abound paper book which, for the facility of reference, has been referred to by us as paper book, Vol. No. 1 and the defendant-respondent No. 5/2, Nirmal Kumar Patni, has similarly prepared and produced an unbound paper book which has been referred to by us as paper book Vol. No. 2.2. In Volume 1 at page 23 a reference has been made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 110 of 1961 reported in : [1962]1SCR868 and we think the short background of the litigation can be usefully reproduced from the judgment of the Supreme Court after suitable amendments:3. At Agra, there were three spinning mills and one flour mill, all of which together were described as the John Mills, and originally the John family or their predecessors were the owners of...
Mohd. Afaq Vs. the Commissioner, Allahabad Division and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ709
ORDERM.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This petition under Article 226 arises from proceedings under the Arms Act, 1959.2. The brief facts are these: In 1967 the petitioner was issued a D.B.B.L. gun licence. The petitioner was in jail in connection with a case under Section 302, I.P.C. when the District Magistrate, Allahabad issued a show cause notice-cum-order of suspension dated 28-9-1969 suspending his licence and directing him to surrender the gun and the licence, to the Station Officer, Nawabgan.i. The petitioner was also by the said order called upon to show cause why his gun licence should not be cancelled. In the said notice dated 28-9-1969 it was also stated that the licence was proposed to be cancelled because the petitioner was nominated as an accused in a case under Section 302, I.P.C. No other ground was mentioned in the said notice. The petitioner states that as he was in jail, # he could not comply with the said notice. Admittedly, no cause was shown in compliance with the said notice...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »