Allahabad Court May 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.
Jagat Dhari and anr. Vs. Zila Parishad, Pratapgarh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All135
ORDERH.N. Seth, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners Jagatdhari and Bisale, residents of rural areas lying within the jurisdiction of Zila Parishad Pratabgarh, seek to challenge the validity of certain bye-laws framed by the Zila Parishad, in purported exercise of its powers under Section 239 (2) E (a) (i), (ii) of the U. P. Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Act and published in the U. P. Gazette dated 13-11-1971. 2. The two petitioners are Chamars by caste. They claim that since time immemorial they and their ancestors have been carrying on the business in bones which is the only source of their livelihood. According to them, if any animal died in a rural area, information was sent to one of the Chamars, like the two petitioners who took the dead body of the animal free of cost. The Chamar concerned disposed of the dead body after skinning it and taking out its bones and horns which they stored at places far away from the village habitation. In ...
Ram Padarath Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All465
Jagmohan Lal, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal whose suit for recovery of compensation for non-delivery of a bale of cotton consigned at railway station New Delhi on the Northern Railway on 1-2-1961 for carriage to railway station Katarniaghat on the North Eastern Railway was decreed by the trial court but dismissed by the lower appellate court. The main ground on which the lower appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's suit was that he had not complied with the provisions of Section 77 of the Railways Act, 1890. 2. On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant it is alleged that the plaintiff had duly complied with the requirements of Section 77 as would be evident from the documents on record. Firstly, it is pointed out that the plaintiff delivered a notice under Section 77 dated 7-4-1961 to some clerk in the office of the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Gorakhpur on the same date and in token of his receipt he got the signature of that clerk and the seal of his office put on Ext. 9. On b...
Shiv Singh Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ704
P.N. Bakshi, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, I.P.C. and 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and five years' rigorous imprisonment respectively by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh vide his judgment and order dated 13-8-1970.2. A short pedigree is necessary for a proper appreciation of the facts of this case:MOTI RAM| ________________________________________________________________| | | |Smt. Gobindi Natha Bam Chunui Singh Sher Singh Natha Ram | | || Hukum Singh | One daughters| | || _____________________ || | | || Shiv Singh (accused) Married(3) || one daughter daughters || || || ________________________________________________________| | | | |Nauna=Smt. Darbo (deceased) Ramsarup Bahgwan Singh Ramjilal Sabran Manhori|Mahendra Singh P.W. 2=Smt. Angoori (Injured P.W. 4)3. From a perusal of the pedigree noted above it is obvious that Srimati Angoori is the sister-in-law of Shiv Singh accused and Srimati Darbo is the aunt of the accused-appella...
Shining Industries and anr. Vs. Shri Krishna Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All231
J.M.L. Sinha, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated27th August, 1970 passed by a learned Single Judge in a suit under Section 29 of the Indian Patents and Designs Act.2. The suit out of which the appeal has arisen was filed by Messrs. Shri Krishna Industries, a registered partnership firm (hereafter to be called the respondent), doing business in the manufacture of locks. The respondent's case, briefly stated, was as follows:--3. In the year 1958 the respondent invented ,a new design of lock and got it registered under the Patents & Designs Act, 1911. The lock was sold under the trade mark of 'Rocket'. In 1965 a new type of lock was invented with improved key operated padlock; and on 1st of May, 1965 the respondent applied for and obtained Patent No. 99371 for the new lock as well. The newly invented lock became popular and earned a good place for itself in the market. The appellant No. 1 is also a registered partnership firm dealing in the manufacture of locks a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.L. Mangal Sain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1974
Reported in: [1977]107ITR598(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. For the assessment year 1965-66 the assessee's book version was rejected on the ground that the expenses and receipts were not verifiable for the truck business and the day-to-day yield record showing quantitative details of timber was not maintained in respect of forest business. The book version was also rejected because it showed low margin of profit. Certain expenses claimed by the assessee were also disallowed. As against the returned income of Rs. 55,556 the Income-tax Officer computed the correct income at Rs. 98,083.2. The assessee went up in appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the finding with regard to the rejection of the account books but he reduced the correct income to Rs. 76,659.3. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings and referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner held that for not maintaining the record and quantitative details of timber for forest and by no...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijai Laxmi Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1974
Reported in: [1975]101ITR670(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The assessee is a limited company which went into liquidation in 1949. The assessment years concerned are 1959-60 and 1960-61. For the assessment year 1959-60, the liquidator filed return of income showing interest received to the extent of Rs. 16,800, As against this income the liquidator claimed expenses in respect of salary, postage, travelling, etc., to the extent of Rs. 13,499. For the assessment year 1960-61, the liquidator filed return showing interest income of Rs. 10,997. As against this income the liquidator claimed similar expenses to the tune of Rs. 15,777. The Income-tax Officer made the assessment under Section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act. He accepted the claim of the liquidator and held that the expenses were admissible and allowed deduction. He completed the assessment for the assessment year 1959-60 at an income of Rs. 3,301 and for the assessment year 1960-61 at a loss of Rs. 4,780.2. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer was succeeded by another o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Musaddi Lal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1974
Reported in: [1977]106ITR672(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench) has stated the case and has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal correctly applied the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was right in law in cancelling the penalty order ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business as a country liquor contractor. The assessment year in question is 1964-65. The corresponding previous year ended on March 31, 1964. As against the returned income of Rs. 15,539 the Income-tax Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 58,510. This included a sum of Rs. 52,000 representing net profit from liquor business arrived at by applying a profit rate of 8% on the estimated sale turnover of the assessee, amounting to Rs. 6,50,000, In appeal, the assessment was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Incom...
ibrahim Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1974
Reported in: 1974CriLJ993
ORDERHari Swarup, J.1. This revision was admitted on the question of sentence. The applicant was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year under Section 304A, I.P.C. The prosecution case which has been believed is that while the applicant was driving a truck a three year old child was struck down and succumbed to the injuries. The applicant has served out a part of the sentence. Having regard to the offence committed by the applicant the sentence awarded cannot be said to be excessive and cannot therefore be reduced.2. Learned counsel has pressed that the applicant be given the benefit of Section 360(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; in the alternative he has urged that the benefit of Section 360(1) be given. For Section 360(3) of Cr.P.C. the offence must be of trivial nature. The offence is an aggravated form of the offence under Section 279, I.P.C. and though punishable with the maximum sentence of two years, cannot be said to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›