Allahabad Court November 1975 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 Surat and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All166
Mathur, J.1. In both these writ petitions, acquisition of plots of the petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for purposes of providing house sites to landless agricultural labourers of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes is challenged. Identical questions arise in the two petitions and it is desirable to dispose them of by one judgment.2. Writ Petition No. 7586 has been filed by three petitioners who are the tenure-holders of plot or chak No. 910 in village Phulli, Pargana Zamania, district Ghazipur. A notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act dated November 20, 1974, was published in the official Gazette. The notification mentioned the plot or chak No. 910 also. In the body of the notification, it was stated that the land was needed for a public purpose, namely, for Rural Housing Scheme. At the bottom of the notification, the purpose, for which the land was required was stated thus:--'Free allotment of house sites to landless agricultural labourers...
Suraj Pal Gupta Vs. the District Judge, Aligarh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All319
ORDERR.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arising out of proceedings under the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The dispute relates to an ac-commodation of which the 3rd respondent, Chitar Mal, is the owner. The accommodation was previously in the tenancy of one Panna Lal where he was running a small flour mill and oil expellex. The landlord filed a suit against him and obtained a decree for ejectment. The decree was put in execution and the entire maohinery and the flour mill and oil ex-peller was purchased by the petitioner, He started running the flour mill and obtained a licence on 23rd March, 1972 from the District Supply Officer for that purpose. In other words, the accommodation came in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner then applied for the allotment of the accommodation to him under Section 7 of the Act. The landlord contested the application on the ground that the accommod...
State Vs. Harihar Shukla
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ507
H.N. Seth, J.1. Sri Jagdish Singh, Judicial Magistrate Kasia made a report to this Court and requested that Sri Harihar Shukla Advocate Kasia, be punished for committing contempt of his court. In due course this Court issued notice to Sri Harihar Shukla, requiring him to show cause why he should not be (punished for committing contempt of Judicial Magistrate's court. On 17th September 1975, Sri Shukla filed an affidavit denying that he did anything which amounted to contempt of Judicial Magistrate's court. The Magistrate concerned was accordingly asked to send his comments with regard to facts stated in Sri Shukla's affidavit. The Magistrate has sent his comments in that regard.2. Facts as they emerge from the report of the Magistrate, affidavit of Sri Shukla and Magistrate's comments thereon, in brief are that on 14-12-1972 Sri Harihar Shukla lodged a first information report at .police station Turkpatti, Facts stated in that report made out that Qashirn and others had committed an of...
Mahendra Singh and ors. Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All208
ORDERR.L. Gulati, J.1. The petitioners along with several others applied for the grant of permits to ply their vehicles on certain routes. Permits were granted to the petitioners and other applications were rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut. Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 went up in appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal has set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that the Regional Transport Authority has not complied with the provisions of Section 57 (7) of the Motor Vehicles Act inasmuch as it has not given elaborate reasons for declaring the petitioners as the best candidates and it has also not made inter se comparison of the merits and demerits of the 25 respondents and the petitioners. Mr. Naithani, the learned counsel for the petitioners objects to this order of the Tribunal on the ground that when all the material was before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), th...
Rama Roller Flour Mills, Meerut Vs. the Regional Food Controller, Meer ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All397
ORDERR.L. Gulati, J. 1. The petitioner owns and runs a flour mill. It also holds a licence in forms B and F under the U. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. Licence in form B is to carry on the business in food grains in wholesale and licence in form F entitles a person to carry on the business in foodgrains as a commission agent. Under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Uttar Pradesh Government issued the Uttar Pradesh Wheat (Levy) Order, 1974. Section 3 of this Order requires that every licensed dealer shall sell to the Food Corporation of India or to the State Government at the scheduled price 50 per cent of Wheat in his stock on the date of the commencement of the Order. The petitioner has been required to sell 50 per cent of the stock in his possession on 17th April, 1974 as levy quota. The petitioner is aggrieved and has challenged that order.2. Now, as noticed earlier, the levy Order is applicable to every licensed dealer. A 'Licensed Dealer' has been...
Liladhar Vs. Siaram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All213
Chandra Prakash, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25th October, 1966, of Sri G. P. Srivastava, Civil Judge, Bareilly dismissing the appellant's appeal after confirming the decree of the trial court.2. The suit giving rise to this second appeal was filed by the plaintiffs respondents against the defendant appellant for possession of the property detailed in the plaint by demolition of defendant's construction, and for the recovery of Rs. 50/- as damages. The allegations in the plaint were that one Jaleel Uddin purchased the Zamindari of Nandgaon in the year 1922 and he remained in its possession as owner till the abolition of the Zamindari. On 16-12-1954, Jaleel Uddin sold the disputed house to one Kishan Swarup. On 5-4-1961 Smt. Jai Rani, widow of Kishan Swarup, sold it to the plaintiffs and one Bholanath. After the death of Kishan Swarup, his heirs raised a dispute but eventually a compromise was arrived at and the heirs of Kishan Swarup,...
Zila Parishad, Lucknow Vs. Ram Khelawan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All209
Hari Sarup, J.1. These appeals have been filed by the District Board, Luck-now, against the plaintiffs in various suits giving rise to these appeals. The plaintiffs had instituted different suits for an injunction to restrain the defendant, District Board, from removing the constructions in dispute and from prosecuting the plaintiffs for not removing the constructions in pursuance of the notice issued by the District Board under Section 95 of the U. P. District Boards Act. An injunction was also sought to restrain the defendant from issuing similar notices in future regarding the constructions in dispute.2. The case of the plaintiffs in each suit was that the constructions standing on the land in suit were about eight years old and were thus not liable to be removed under Section 95 of the U. P. District Boards Act, Their contention was that by reason of Section 28 of the Indian Limitation Act the right of the District Board had been extinguished and accordingly the buildings could not...
Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1975
Reported in: [1978]112ITR1038(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company having its registered office at Kanpur and carries on business of manufacture and sale of cotton textiles. For the assessment year 1973-74, the petitioner filed an estimate under Section 212(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in Form No. 29 on 13th of September, 1972, disclosing an income of Rs. 10,000. Later on, the estimate was revised under Section 212(2) on 12th March, 1973, and income of Rs. 63,12,880 was disclosed. On this income an advance tax amounting to Rs. 36,44,078 was paid. Later, the petitioner filed a return under Section 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year 1973-74, on September 4, 1973, declaring a loss of Rs. 1,14,35,090. In computing the loss, the following two amounts were claimed as deductions : Rs.(a) Liability for gratuity ... 1,67,34,000(b) Unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate carried forward from the assessmentyears 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 ... 96,94,1212. The claim for gratuity was ma...
Anwar UddIn Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1786
H.N. Kapoor, J.1. This revision has been listed before us as notice for enhancement of sentence was issued by Parekh, J. The applicant Anwaruddin has been convicted under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act XXIX of 1966 and sentenced to one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the trial court. In Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1971, the Addl. Civil and Sessions Judge, Agra by his judgment dated 1-2-1972 maintained the conviction of the applicant but reduced the substantive sentence to six months' R. I, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- instead of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the applicant was to undergo further R. I. for three months. The learned single Judge, who heard the revision at the earlier stage, took the view that the minimum sentence was prescribed under Section 3 of the said Act and any reduction in the minimum sentence was not permissible as special and adequate reasons had not been given by the Addl. Civil and Sessions Judge. The revi...
Engineering Traders Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1975
Reported in: [1976]38STC502(All)
K.B. Asthana, C.J.1. We have heard Sri R. R. Agarwal in support of this petition. By an amendment of the Sales Tax Act the rate of tax chargeable on the sale of water-pumps was retrospectively enhanced from 2 per cent to 6 per cent. Consequently, the Sales Tax Officer issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause why assessment be not reopened and tax at the rate of 6 per cent be charged for the previous years also which were covered by the impugned law. The petitioner, as an assesses, in response to the notice raised objections as to the jurisdiction and competence of the Sales Tax Officer to reopen the proceedings. The objections were repelled and the Sales Tax Officer in pursuance of the impugned law levied the tax at the rate of 6 per cent. However, it appears that the petitioner had filed appeals against the original assessment made at the rate of 2 per cent which are pending before the appellate authority.2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »