Allahabad Court September 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.
Ram Bahadur Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1279
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. The applicant was found selling, exposing and storing for sale coloured Barfi in Mela Tigri in premises No. 27, Sector No. 8. The Food Inspector after- serving a notice upon him purchased 650 grams of Barfi for Rs. 3/- from him. A receipt evidencing the purchase was duly obtained from the applicant. The sample was divided into three parts and sealed in clear and dry bottles. One of these sample bottles was sent to the Public Analyst Lucknow for analysis. The report of the Analyst disclosed that the Barfi was deficient in milk fat by 4.4. per cent, and it was coloured with one of the coal tar dyes, namely, Rhodamine B, the use of which was not permitted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On these allegations the applicant was prosecuted. Both the courts below relied upon the evidence tendered by the prosecution and held the guilt of the accused-applicant established. The trial court convicted the applicant under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Pr...
B. Raghunandan Saran Vs. Smt. Kanta Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All130
Hari Swarup, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a perpetual injunction to prohibit the defendant from constructing the projection (Ghajja) from his house over the lane in accordance with the sanction alleged to have been obtained by him from the Municipal Board. Sambhal. The plaintiff came to the Court on the ground that his easementary right to get light and air into his house, would be curtailed by the proposed construction. The second ground on which he sought the injunction wag that the street over which the defendants intended to make the construction was only about five feet wide and the bye-laws of the Municipal Board prohibited the making of any projection over such a lane. The lane runs between the houses of the plaintiff and the defendants. 2. The defendants contested, the suit on the ground that the construction of the protection was not likely to affect the plaintiff's right to set light and air, and that the sanction obtained from the Municipal Bo...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sunhari Lal Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC425(All)
K.N. Seth, J.1. M/s. Sunhari Lal Jain, a dealer in tea, betels, cold drinks, etc., was assessed to sales tax for the year 1967-68 on net sales of Rs. 18,000, Rs. 12,000, tea and cold drinks and Rs. 6,000 dressed betels. In appeal the assessment order was confirmed. The assessee filed a revision and the main contention, with which we are concerned in this reference, was that tea was cooked food and the sale of tea being below the taxable limit was exempt from tax. This contention found favour with the Additional Judge (Revisions). At the instance of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:Whether, under the circumstances and on the facts of the case, hot tea is cooked food ?2. The Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, held tea as cooked food relying on the decision of Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. India Coffee Workers' Co-operative Society Ltd. [1970] 25 S.T.C. 43. The question b...
Shamshul Hasan Vs. Kuber Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ898
ORDERHari Swarup, J.1. This is a petition for taking action against respondents for having committed contempt of this Court. The applicant prays that action be taken under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter called the Act), which deals with the High Court's power to punish for contempt of courts subordinate to it. 'The petition, however, does not disclose ;any order of any court .subordinate to this Court which has been disobeyed. The ap-' iplicatiqn under Section 10 is thus not maintainable., ' ..2. So far as disobedience of this Court's order is concerned, no specific order has been mentioned which might have been disobeyed, An order has, how- ever, been filed as annexure 4 to the affidavit. This order was passed on 13-6-1972 in Writ Petn. No. 3755 of 1972 (All> (Shabuddin Khan v, Divisional Forest. Officer). Learned Standing Counsel has-pointed out that in this petition the present petitioner was not even a party and no particulars of disobedience have been given....
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Mittal Radios
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1974
Reported in: [1975]36STC29(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The Revising Authority, Meerut, 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 Sales Tax Officer had jurisdiction to assess the assessee ?2. On 29th April, 1967, the assessee filed his return for the fourth quarter of the assessment year 1966-67. Along with the return he tendered a cheque for Rs. 334.12, which represented the admitted amount of tax. It appears that the cheque bounced back from the bank dishonoured. Thereupon, on 26th September, 1967, the Assistant Sales Tax Officer issued notice under Section 15A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act proposing to impose penalty upon the assessee for not having paid the admitted tax along with the return and requiring him to show cause. Thereafter the assessee deposited the requisite amount and informed the Assistant Sales Tax Officer that he had done so. On 11th November, 1967, the Assistant Sales Tax Officer passed an order :Prosecutio...
Riazat HussaIn Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad Division and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ654
ORDERR.L. Gulati, J.1. The petitioner held a licence which was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Allahabad, by his order dated 27th June, 1970, The petitioner's appeal to the Commissioner also failed. He has now approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. It appears that the petitioner was involved in a case under Section 107/117, Cr.P.C. The District Magistrate, Allahabad, suspended the petitioner's licence for that reason and asked him to show cause why his licence should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted a written reply which was not accepted by the District Magistrate and eventually he cancelled the petitioner's licence.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the District Magistrate as also of the Commissioner on various grounds. The principal ground as disclosed in the rejoinder-affidavit is that, according to the standing orders issued by Sri M. S. Dass, the then Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, files relating ...
Gajraj and ors. Vs. Collector Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1026
D.S. Mathur, C.J.1. The following questions have been referred to this Full Bench:-Whether(1) the Supreme Court decision lays down the law that even if a plea is raised under Sub-section (5) of Section 145. such, a plea must be rejected once the Magistrate had arrived at the conclusion under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 that there was an apprehension of breach of peace.(2) The Division Bench decisions of this Court in Ganga Singh v. Raj Bahadur Singh : AIR1958All803 and Sanka-tha Singh v. Rahmat Ullah, 1973 Cri LJ 1091 (All) and Sheo Nath Singh v, MannoO' Singh Yadava, 1969 All WR (HC) 817 are-no longer good law.2. The material facts of the case are that the present revisionists, Gajrai and his two brothers, moved an applica- . tion under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (to be referred hereinafter as the Code), with the allegations that they were in possession of the disputed plots Nos. 513/1, 514 and 711, situate in village Aurani, P. S. Sandi, atid that the oppo...
Ratan NaraIn Mulla Vs. the Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1283
ORDERHari Swarup, J.1. This petition has been moved under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for punishing the opposite parties for having committed the contempt of this Court. Besides the State of Uttar Pradesh through its Chief Secretary, Sri B. D. Sanwal and four other officers of the State Government were impleaded as opposite parties. The Court, however, issued notice to show cause only to respondents Nos. 6 and 4 viz. the State of Uttar Pradesh and Sri R. K. Kaul, Secretary, Griha Vibhag (Jails), and did not issue notice to other respondents. According to the petitioner the opposite parties committed contempt of this Court by not paying to the petitioner arrears of his salary even though the order of his dismissal from service had been quashed by this Court in the Writ petition filed by him. The facts giving rise to this case, briefly stated, are as follows:The petitioner was an employee of the State Government and was working as Ja...
Jayna Time Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal (iii) and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1974
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ436All
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on behalf of a private limited company called Jayna Time Industries with its registered office at Daryaganj, Delhi, and having a factory at Ghaziabad. The dispute arose between the petitioner-company and its employees with regard to the payment of bonus for the year 1964. This dispute was eventually referred by the State of Uttar Pradesh for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal III, Allahabad. The following question was referred to the Tribunal:Should the employers be required to pay bonus to their workmen for the year 1964? If so, at what rate and with what other details.After the parties had exchanged pleadings, a sum of Rs. 41,680 was worked out as available surplus in the following manner:Profit for the year 1964-65 (year ending 31-12-1964) as per Profit andLoss Account. Rs. 68,233,00Add back as per Schedule IIof the Bonus Act. Depreciation Rs. 91,228.00Development Rebate, Rs. 41,800.00________________Rs....
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Co-operative Marketing Society
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC172(All)
K.N. Seth, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, the Additional Revising Authority, Sales Tax, Allahabad, 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 assessee could be deemed to be dealer as defined by the U. P. Sales Tax Act, in relation to the transaction of its farmer-members ?2. The assessee is a co-operative society registered under the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act. The society has some cultivators as its members who bring their produce to the premises of the society for sale which are purchased by outside purchasers as well as certain dealers holding licences. On the completion of the transaction the society issues parcha kashtakar to the cultivators and parcha tewal to the purchasers and they are entered in the register maintained by the society. The goods are delivered to the purchasers on payment of price to the cultivators and the society realises its commission. In...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »