Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1976All250
Gopi Nath, J.1. This is an Execution Second Appeal against the order of the Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur dated 23-8-1968 affirming the order of the City Munsif Kanpur dismissing an application under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code, Sri Shanker Lal Jakodia, the appellant was a tenant of premises No. 77/14 Kulee Bazar, Kanpur. M/s. Ram Kishan Baldeo Prasad the respondent was the landlord. A suit for the appellant's eviction was filed which was decreed by the trial court but was dismissed by the lower appellate Court A second appeal in the case also failed. The result was that the appellant under the decree of the lower appellate court was entitled to regain possession of the premises in dispute as a tenant. It appears that during the proceedings in the court below Sri Lalloo presad the second respondent was inducted by M/s. Ram Kishan Baldeo Prasad, the landlord as a tenant. The second appeal in the case having failed, Shanker Lal Jakodia, the appellant in this appeal, filed an app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1976All150
Misra, J.1. The present second Appeal and the revision application arising out of two different suits came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court, The two cases involved the interpretation of Section 30 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as the main point. The single Judge finding a conflict of judicial opinion in the two Division Bench decisions, namely, Shri Ram v. Dhani Ram Gupta, 1974 All WR (HC) 213 = (AIR 1974 All 358) and Shanti Prasad v. Akhtar, 1972 RD 275 (All) referred the two cases to a larger Bench. This 5s how these cases have come up before us.2. Though the pattern of facts in the two cases is similar yet the details differ. It will, therefore, be convenient to give the material facts of the two cases to bring out the point involved therein.3. In the Second Appeal No. 1467 of 1966, Mahendra Nath and his uncle Jeewa Ram were the co-tenants of certain plots, measuring 6.04 acres. By a deed of agreement dated 16th June, 1960, Jeewa Ram agreed to s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1976All399
Gopi Nath, J. 1. These are two connected second appeals arising out of two suits filed by Smt. Mushtari Khatoon the plaintiff appellant in Second Appeal No. 3009 of 72 and the plaintiff respondent in Second Appeal No. 119 of 72. It appears that there were two shops in a building which were leased out to two persons. Ishtiaq Ahmad the defendant respondent in Second Appeal No. 3009 of 72 is the tenant of one shop and Brij Kishore the defendant appellant in Second Appeal No. 119 of 72 is the tenant of the other shop. The plaintiff Smt Mushtari Khatoon had given notices to the two tenants to vacate the premises temporarily for a short period so that the shops may be reconstructed as they appeared to be in a damaged condition requiring repair, and alteration and reconstruction of the same. On the notices issued the two tenants filed two injunction suits restraining Smt. Mushtari Khatoon from demolishing the property or taking any steps to reconstruct the same. Suit No. 417 of 68 was filed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1976]38STC548(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Additional Revising Authority, Sales Tax, Varanasi, has under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act referred the following question for our opinion:Whether, in view of the above facts and in the circumstances of the case, the society would come within the purview of 'dealer' as defined under Section 2(c) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act ?2. The assessee is a co-operative society and sells foodgrains of its constituent members. On a notice being sent to it by the Sales Tax Officer, the assessee denied working as a commission agent, and contended that it was not a 'dealer' and, as such, not liable to payment of any tax. This contention was not accepted by the Sales Tax Officer and he fixed the net turnover for 1960-61 at Rs. 90, 117.06, for 1961-62 at Rs. 4,10,225.18 and for 1962-63 at Rs. 6,17,680.78. An appeal was filed by the assessee but the contention that he was not a dealer was not accepted. A revision was thereafter filed. The Judge (Revisions) accepted the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(All)0029A
ORDERC. S. P. Singh, J. - The Additional Revising Authority Sales Tax, Varanasi has under sec. 11 (1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act referred the following question for our opinion :-'Whether in view of the above facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Society would come within the purview of 'Dealer' as defined under sec. 2(C) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act ?'2. The assessee is a Co-operative Society and sells foodgrains of its constituent members. On a notice being sent to it by the Sales Tax Officer, the assessee derived working as a commission agent, and contended that it was not a dealer and, as such, not liable to payment of any tax. This contention was not a accepted by the Sales Tax Officer and he fixed the net turnover for 1960-61 at Rs. 90,117-06, for 1961-62 at Rs. 4,10,225.18 and for 1962-63 at Rs. 6,17,680-78. An appeal was filed by the assessee but the contention that he was not a dealer was not accepted. A revision was thereafter filed. The Judge Revisions accepted the ple...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(All)56
Gulati, J. - This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The assessee is a registered partnership firm. It is engaged in the business of commission agency. The assessment year involved is 1969-70. During the relevant previous year the assessee charged from its customers a customery levy called 'Dharmada' and credited it in the Ramji and Gaushala account. The total amount to collected was Rs. 10,593/-. Income-tax Officer held that the amount in question was a trading receipt and, as such, a part of the profits of the assessee firm. He accordingly included it in the total income and levied tax thereon. The assessees appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax failed. On second appeal the Income-tax Tribunal has allowed the assessees claim holding that Dharmada has been charged from the customers under a custom prevalent in Uttar Pradesh and relying upon a decision of this Court in Bijli Cotton Mills Ltd...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(All)91
C. S. P. Singh, J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad, has under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, referred the following question for our opinion :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the right to receive the Malikana allowance of Rs. 30,612-8 Annas in the case of the joint family in respect of 1957-58 and 1958-59 assessment years and 1/4th thereof in the hands of each of the four members of the Joint Hindu family in respect of 1964-65 assessment years onwards, was exempt under section 2(e)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'2. For the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, the reference relate to Kr. T. N. Singh Hindu undivided family while those pertaining to years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, relate to Kr. T. N. Singh as an individual. The case of Smt. Shanti Devi, individual, wife of Kr. T. N. Singh, for the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1976All178
ORDERR.L. Gulati, J.1. The petitioner, M/s. Prem Potteries, is a firm carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of potteries and fire bricks made of china day in district Bulandshahr, which requires steam coal for manufacture of these goods. The steam coal is imported from collieries outside U.P. According to the petitioner, the coal is supplied by the Calcutta Coal Mines authorities and for that purpose railway wagons are allotted by the Director of Rail Movements, Calcutta, The Director of Industries, Kanpur, who is also the State Coal Controller, sponsors the movement of coal wagons on priority basis in respect of the industries in the State and, such recommendations are sent to the Director of Rail Movements Calcutta for allotment of wagons on priority basis. Taking into consideration the requirement of the petitioner and the availability of railway wagons, the Director of Industries, Kanpur had recommended for the allotment of 45 wagons to the petitioner during the year 197...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1976All221
Hari Sarup, J. 1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. Plaintiffs instituted the suit on the allegation that the defendants were tenants of a portion of the building and were trespassers in respect of the remaining portion, and that they were liable to be ejected from the portion they were occupying as trespassers and also from the portion they were occupying as tenants because they had defaulted in paying arrears of rent and had made material alterations in the building which had affected adversely the utility of the building.2. The case of defendants was that they were not the tenants of a portion of the building but of the entire building and the plea that they were trespassers was not a correct plea. The defendants also contended that the notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act was bad because it was not given to the lessee, who according to them was the partnership firm and not the partners, and als...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1976]37STC154(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 11(3) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow.2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of shoes. During the assessment year 1962-63 the assessee claimed exemption from sales tax on the turnover of Rs. 20,907 on the ground that those sales represented sales made during the course of export of goods from India, as defined in sections of the Central Sales Tax Act. This claim of the assessee was rejected by the Sales Tax Officer on the ground that the turnover in question represented local sales in favour of a company called the Agra Charm Kala Kendra. On appeal the claim of the as'sessee was allowed and the revision of the State was dismissed by the revising authority. The Commissioner is aggrieved and, at bis instance, the following question of law has been referred to us :Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, sales worth Rs. 20,907 were sales in t...
Tag this Judgment!